Fetch current top stories from E! News (US edition) using its public RSS feed.
Get E! News top stories. Returns fresh E! News (US edition) 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 present, so the description carries that burden. It usefully discloses a read-only fetch of a public RSS feed and the US edition, but it does not say what each top-story item contains, whether the result is RSS/JSON, or any update/rate-limit behavior.
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?
Two short sentences with the core action first and supporting details (fresh, US edition, RSS) second. There is no filler or unnecessary elaboration.
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-parameter read tool, the description covers the essential selection and invocation context: what is returned, source freshness, edition, and feed type. It leaves the output item shape unspecified, but that is not required to invoke the tool successfully.
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?
There are no parameters, so the schema already says everything needed; the description need not add parameter semantics. Baseline 4 applies.
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 clear verb and resource: get E! News top stories. It adds source (public RSS feed) and edition (US), but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling eonline_headlines, which could plausibly serve the same need.
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 directly states the use case—fetch fresh E! News top stories—so an agent has clear context. It does not give when-not guidance or name alternatives, but for a zero-parameter feed tool the context is straightforward.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.