Retrieve Daily Star (UK) top stories from the public home RSS feed; returns article text and excludes photo galleries lacking readable bodies.
Get Daily Star (UK) top stories. Returns fresh Daily Star (UK) top stories from the public home RSS feed. Photo galleries are omitted because they have no readable article body.
| 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 provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the public (no-auth) source, that results are 'fresh,' and that photo galleries are deliberately omitted with a reason. However, it doesn't state return item structure (titles, links, summaries), pagination/limits, or what happens on feed failure—gaps that matter for a list-returning tool.
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 compact sentences totaling about 40 words, with the core purpose front-loaded. Sentences 1 and 2 are partially redundant—both repeat 'top stories'—but the third sentence earns its place by explaining the gallery-omission behavior. Minor redundancy prevents a 5.
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 simple, zero-parameter feed fetcher, the essential facts are present: what is returned, its source, freshness, and an exclusion rule. Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the missing return-format details (fields per story) and the unstated distinction from dailystaruk_headlines leave the description merely adequate rather than 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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing the description must explain beyond noting the feed is unfiltered. The 0-params baseline of 4 applies; the 'top stories from the home RSS feed' phrasing further signals the agent that no configuration is needed.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get Daily Star (UK) top stories,' with a precise source ('public home RSS feed'). This distinguishes it from dailystaruk_article and dailystaruk_author, though it doesn't clarify the boundary with dailystaruk_headlines, a sibling that could plausibly overlap with 'top stories.'
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given relative to siblings like dailystaruk_headlines, dailystaruk_sections, or dailystaruk_article. The 'public home RSS feed' phrasing implies a no-auth list context, and the photo-gallery note warns about omitted content, but the agent is left to infer which sibling to pick for headlines vs stories.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.