Fetch top CBR stories via public RSS feed to stay informed on comic book and entertainment news.
Get CBR top stories. Returns fresh CBR top stories from its public RSS feed.
| 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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'fresh' and 'public RSS feed', but does not state whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, or what the response contains (e.g., just headlines or full stories). This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured metadata.
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 description is exceptionally concise—two short sentences totaling about 15 words—with the core purpose front-loaded ('Get CBR top stories'). No fluff or repetition.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but leaves ambiguity about the return format. It says 'returns fresh CBR top stories' but doesn't specify if it returns just titles, links, or full text. For an agent to know what to expect, a bit more detail would help, but it's not critically incomplete.
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 has zero parameters, so the schema is vacuous and description doesn't need to add parameter details. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description provides enough context about what the tool returns.
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?
The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Get CBR top stories'. It also adds a source detail ('from its public RSS feed'). However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like cbr_headlines or cbr_sections, though 'top stories' is distinct enough to be understood.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cbr_headlines or cbr_article. Since the tool has no parameters, the intended use is implicit, but the description offers no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.