Fetches GamesRadar+ top stories from the public RSS feed, returning clean JSON for gaming and entertainment news monitoring.
Get GamesRadar+ top stories. Returns fresh GamesRadar+ top 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it returns fresh top stories from the RSS feed, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention any limits, pagination, or what happens if the feed is unavailable. This is adequate for a simple fetch but lacks depth.
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?
The description is two concise sentences with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds a source detail. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic context: it fetches top stories from the RSS feed. However, it does not specify the structure of the returned data (e.g., list of articles with titles, links), which could be helpful for the agent. Given its simplicity, it is acceptable but not exhaustive.
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 the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description correctly adds no extra parameter information since none exist. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.
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 clearly states the action (Get) and resource (GamesRadar+ top stories) and mentions the source (public RSS feed). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like gamesradar_headlines or gamesradar_news, which also deal with news content. The 'top stories' phrasing adds some specificity but lacks explicit comparison to alternatives.
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 like gamesradar_headlines, gamesradar_news, or gamesradar_sections. The description simply states what it does without any context on selection criteria or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.