Fetch France 24 English-edition top stories from the public RSS feed via Crawlora MCP, returning clean JSON for news monitoring.
Get France 24 top stories. Returns fresh France 24 English-edition stories from the 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: the data comes from a public RSS feed, implying a read-only, free, no-auth operation. However, it does not disclose the number of stories returned, whether results are cached/stale, error behavior, or the structure of each story, which would matter for a tool with no output schema.
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 tight sentences, zero filler. The key facts—what is retrieved, which edition, and the source—are front-loaded in the first sentence, with the source detail earning its place in the second.
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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what, which edition, and the source. The main gap is the return shape (fields per story, count), which would help an agent parse results, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is nearly sufficient.
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 input schema, so there is nothing to document. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4; the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter discussion.
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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing ('Get France 24 top stories') and adds scope details: English edition, top stories, fresh content, public RSS feed. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from the sibling france24_headlines, which likely returns similar content.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings. With france24_headlines, france24_article, france24_author, and france24_sections all present, the description should note what distinguishes 'top stories' from 'headlines' or indicate which use cases each serves.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.