Fetch Daily Wire top stories from its public RSS feed to populate news apps, dashboards, and alerts with current headlines.
Get Daily Wire top stories. Returns fresh Daily Wire top stories from its public RSS feed.
| 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 must carry behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'Returns fresh Daily Wire top stories from its public RSS feed,' indicating a read-only operation and data source. However, it does not mention potential limitations like number of stories, caching, or response format, which would be useful context.
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 description is short but contains redundancy: 'Get Daily Wire top stories' and 'Returns fresh Daily Wire top stories' repeat the same core phrase. It still front-loads the purpose and adds the RSS feed detail, but could be trimmed to a single efficient sentence.
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 tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and source. However, it doesn't clarify how this tool differs from dailywire_headlines or what 'top stories' entails (e.g., count or freshness), leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing among related siblings.
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 and the schema is empty (coverage 100%). Per the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description correctly omits parameter details, as there are none to explain.
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 Wire top stories' and identifies the source as 'its public RSS feed.' This clearly conveys the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like dailywire_article or dailywire_author, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from dailywire_headlines.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dailywire_headlines or dailywire_sections. The description implies use when top stories are needed, but it doesn't name siblings or provide exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.