Retrieve top Channel NewsAsia stories from its RSS feed. Get current headlines as structured JSON for news aggregation.
Get CNA top stories. Returns fresh CNA (Channel NewsAsia) 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 behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is an RSS feed retrieval, that results are 'fresh', and that the feed is public, which implies read-only access. However, it does not describe the response format, item count, or failure behavior.
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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The phrase 'top stories' is repeated and the CNA expansion is slightly redundant, but there is no unnecessary background or filler.
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 zero-parameter, low-complexity tool the description is reasonably complete: it names the source and the result. But since there is no output schema and no annotations, it would be more complete if it hinted at the shape of the returned stories (e.g., titles, links, publication dates).
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 and the empty schema fully describes the input contract. With no parameters, a baseline of 4 applies and the description adds no further parameter semantics, which is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get CNA top stories') and adds the data source ('public RSS feed'). It is clear about what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling cna_headlines.
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 given for when to use this tool versus siblings like cna_headlines, cna_sections, or cna_article. There are no alternatives mentioned and no exclusions, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and minimal description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.