Fetch current Daily Mail top stories with titles, URLs, summaries, publication times, and images. Use this no-parameter tool to monitor headlines; for a single section, use dailymail-headlines.
Get Daily Mail top stories. Returns the current Daily Mail top stories. Each item has its title, URL, summary, publication time and image. Takes no parameters; use dailymail-headlines for a single section.
| 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 discloses the return shape (title, URL, summary, publication time, image) and that the feed is parameterless. It omits auth/rate-limit or freshness/refresh behavior, which keeps it from a 5.
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 first two sentences are redundant ('Get Daily Mail top stories. Returns the current Daily Mail top stories.'), restating the same fact. The genuinely useful routing and return-shape details come after, so the lead is slightly 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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the necessary work: it names the payload fields and the parameterless nature, and points at the sibling for a different scope. Additional context on fixes/refresh cadence would make it fully complete.
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 the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by explicitly stating 'Takes no parameters', leaving nothing for the agent to guess.
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 Mail top stories') and names a sibling ('dailymail-headlines') to distinguish scope. The distinction between 'top stories' and section 'headlines' is implied rather than explicit, so it stops short of a fully unambiguous 5.
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?
Routes the agent to an alternative with a condition ('use dailymail-headlines for a single section'), which is concrete routing guidance. It does not explain when this tool is preferable over dailymail_article or dailymail_sections, so coverage is clear but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.