Fetch FOX Sports top stories from the official public All Headlines RSS feed, returning current headlines for quick news updates.
Get FOX Sports top stories. Returns current FOX Sports top stories from the official public All Headlines RSS feed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the content comes from a public RSS feed and represents current top stories, but it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, return format, or read-only nature beyond the obvious implication of 'Get'.
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, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every phrase adds useful information about the source or content type, with no filler.
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, no-parameter RSS-backed tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned and where it comes from. It could say more about output fields or how often the feed updates, but those are minor 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?
The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the baseline, so a 4 is appropriate.
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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('FOX Sports top stories'), and names the source feed ('official public All Headlines RSS feed'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like foxsports_headlines or foxsports_article, so it stops short of a 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a simple fetch of top stories, but it does not state when this is preferable to foxsports_headlines, foxsports_article, or foxsports_sections.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.