Retrieve CNET top stories without input, returning titles, URLs, summaries, publication times, and authors when available.
Get CNET top stories. Returns the latest CNET top stories, with no input needed. Each item has a title, canonical URL, summary, publication time and author name when CNET provides them.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully enumerates the returned fields (title, canonical URL, summary, publication time, author), but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, item count, or ordering guarantees for what is clearly a network-backed feed.
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 tight sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and no filler. The field enumeration in the second sentence earns its place given there is no output schema.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must cover both behavior and returns. It partially does so by naming the item fields, but omits how many stories are returned, ordering, and how it differs from the sibling headline/section tools.
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly confirms 'no input needed', which is consistent with the empty schema and adds nothing misleading.
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 CNET top stories') and describes the returned item shape. It does not distinguish itself from the closely related siblings cnet_headlines and cnet_sections, so an agent cannot tell which to pick without opening each definition.
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?
Only hint is 'with no input needed', which merely restates the empty schema. There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives (cnet_headlines, cnet_sections, cnet_article), leaving the agent to guess at routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.