Fetches Daily Express top stories with titles, URLs, summaries, publication times, and images. Use it to gather current front-page news data in one call without parameters.
Get Daily Express top stories. Returns the current Daily Express top stories. Each item has its title, URL, summary, publication time and image. Takes no parameters; use dailyexpress-headlines to read a single section instead.
| 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 disclosure burden. It helpfully enumerates the returned fields (title, URL, summary, publication time, image), effectively standing in for a missing output schema, but says nothing about read-only nature, freshness/caching, pagination, or limits.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the schema/return info plus the sibling pointer all earn their place. Slight redundancy between 'Get top stories' and 'Returns the current top stories,' but nothing wasteful.
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 no-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and the key alternative sibling. No pagination or freshness detail, but nothing critical is missing 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?
Zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description confirms this explicitly with 'Takes no parameters,' which aligns with the empty schema and leaves no ambiguity.
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 Daily Express top stories') and explicitly contrasts with the sibling 'dailyexpress-headlines' for single-section reading. An agent can distinguish it from dailyexpress_article/author/sections without opening any schema.
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 gives a routing rule: use dailyexpress-headlines for a single section, implying this tool is for the front-page top stories. It's clear context but does not spell out when-not conditions or mention the other siblings (article/author/sections).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.