Get Collider top stories with titles, URLs, summaries, publish times, authors, and lead images—no parameters required.
Get Collider top stories. Lists the latest Collider stories, about 10 items. Each item has its title, canonical URL, summary, publish time, author names (co-authors are joined with a comma) and lead image. Takes no parameters.
| 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 well: it discloses the approximate result count (~10 items) and the exact shape of each returned item (title, canonical URL, summary, publish time, author names with co-author joining rule, lead image). It omits auth or rate-limit context, but for a parameterless read endpoint the output disclosure is the meaningful behavioral content.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the one-line purpose before the detail. Efficient overall, though "about 10 items" is slightly hedged and the co-author joining rule is more detail than most callers need.
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, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape that the schema cannot, which is the key gap. The only shortfall is the absence of any routing guidance among the other collider_* list/article 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 reinforces this with "Takes no parameters," matching the empty schema rather than implying hidden filtering options.
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?
"Get Collider top stories. Lists the latest Collider stories" gives a specific verb and resource, and the field enumeration makes the scope concrete. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'collider_headlines' or 'collider_article', so an agent choosing between Collider list endpoints gets no differentiation.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no condition that selects this over collider_headlines, collider_article, or collider_sections, and no exclusions. "Takes no parameters" is a factual note, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.