Get the top 10 CBR news stories immediately. Access key details including titles, summaries, publication times, and lead images without needing any input.
Get CBR top stories. Returns about 10 of the latest CBR stories from the site's main feed, with no input needed. Each has a title, canonical URL, summary, publication time, author names (co-authors joined with a comma) and lead 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 does well: it discloses the approximate number of items returned (~10), the source feed, and the exact fields in each item. It omits auth/rate-limit/pagination details, but for a simple feed these are minor gaps.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by essential return details. Every sentence adds useful information, and nothing is repeated or wasted.
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?
The tool is low-complexity with no parameters and no output schema, and the description covers the return shape and count. It could more clearly differentiate from cbr_headlines and clarify update timing, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the description correctly states 'no input needed.' This matches the schema and leaves no parameter ambiguity, meeting the baseline for a parameterless tool.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Get CBR top stories,' and describes the return as latest stories from the main feed. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like cbr_headlines or cbr_article, leaving their boundaries implicit.
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?
The description notes that no input is needed, which is an invocation detail rather than usage guidance. It gives no explicit when-to-use context and does not name or contrast with alternatives such as cbr_headlines.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.