Fetch Business Insider top stories as structured JSON, with titles, canonical URLs, and optional summaries, authors, publication times, and images. No input required.
Get Business Insider top stories. Returns the latest Business Insider top stories, with no input needed. Each item has a title and canonical URL, and may also carry a summary, author, publication time and image.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that no input is required and enumerates the returned item shape (title, canonical URL, optional summary, author, publication time, image). It omits item count, freshness window, and pagination behavior, so it is solid but not complete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The first two sentences are near-duplicates ('Get Business Insider top stories' / 'Returns the latest Business Insider top stories, with no input needed'), so roughly a third of the text is redundant. The return-shape sentence is the only one that adds new information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-argument, no-output-schema news endpoint, the description supplies exactly the missing piece: what each returned item contains. Nothing essential about calling the tool is absent, though volume and recency of the returned feed are unstated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the explicit 'no input needed' statement correctly reinforces the empty schema. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Get Business Insider top stories', with the scope clarified as 'the latest top stories'. It separates itself from article/author/sections siblings by being a feed, but gives no basis for choosing it over the near-identical `businessinsider_headlines` sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: 'with no input needed' tells the agent this is a zero-argument latest-news fetch. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when a sibling such as `businessinsider_headlines` or `businessinsider_article` would be preferable, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.