Fetch current FOX Sports top stories from All Headlines, returning titles, URLs, summaries, publication times, authors and images when supplied.
Get FOX Sports top stories. Returns current cross-sport stories from FOX Sports' All Headlines feed. Each item has its title and canonical story URL, plus summary, publication time, author and image when FOX Sports supplies them. Takes no parameters.
| 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 and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses the source feed and enumerates the per-item fields (title, canonical URL, summary, publication time, author, image) plus the conditional nature of the optional ones. It stops short of stating result count, freshness, or pagination 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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the return details. The closing 'Takes no parameters' is mildly redundant against the empty schema but serves as a useful explicit confirmation for the calling agent.
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 zero-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape that structured fields cannot. Missing only secondary details like how many stories are returned and how current they are, which are minor for this tool type.
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 and the description explicitly confirms this ('Takes no parameters'), matching the empty schema. With nothing to document, the baseline of 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 specific verb and resource ('Get FOX Sports top stories') and names the underlying feed (All Headlines), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling foxsports_headlines, which appears to cover the same surface, leaving ambiguity about which to pick.
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 call this versus foxsports_headlines, foxsports_sections, or foxsports_article — all plausible siblings for the same kind of content. Usage is only implied by the name; no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.