Fetch current top stories from Free Malaysia Today as structured JSON, including title, URL, summary, author, publication time, and lead image.
Get the latest Free Malaysia Today stories. Returns Free Malaysia Today's current public top-stories RSS feed: each story's title, canonical URL, summary, author, publication time, and lead image.
| 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 burden and does well: it declares the source is a public top-stories RSS feed (implying no auth, no filtering, fixed editorial ordering) and enumerates the returned fields. It stops short of stating item count, refresh cadence, or whether the feed is cached, which are the remaining behavioral unknowns.
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 sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the return-shape detail following. The dense field enumeration in sentence two is justified because no output schema exists.
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, schema-light tool with no output schema, the description covers both what it fetches and what each item contains, which is what an agent needs. Minor gaps: no indication of feed size, ordering guarantees, or update frequency.
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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument, no-filtering call, and there are no parameters that could be misused or left undocumented.
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 the latest Free Malaysia Today stories', and pins the source to 'Free Malaysia Today's current public top-stories RSS feed'. That is enough to distinguish it from feed/fetch siblings generally, but it never acknowledges the closest sibling, freemalaysiatoday_sections, so the section-vs-top-stories boundary is left implicit.
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 when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative. 'Latest ... top-stories' implies a breaking-news use case, but the agent gets no guidance on choosing this over freemalaysiatoday_sections for section browsing, nor any prerequisite context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.