Fetch GB News top stories as structured JSON. Returns up to 30 stories with titles, URLs, summaries, publication times, authors, and lead images when available.
Get GB News top stories. Returns the latest 30 GB News top stories. Each item has a title, canonical URL, summary (the story's first paragraph), publication time, author name and lead image, when GB News provides them. Takes no parameters.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the fixed return size (latest 30) and the fields returned, including that some are conditional ('when GB News provides them'). However, it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or refresh behavior, leaving the behavioral picture partial.
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the return shape. No filler or repetition, though the field enumeration is a bit list-like rather than tightly structured.
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?
With no output schema, the description appropriately carries the return-value detail (count and fields). With zero parameters and an implied read-only nature, little else is required; the main gap is the lack of sibling differentiation.
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 no parameters, so there is nothing to document, and the description correctly states 'Takes no parameters.' This is the baseline for a zero-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 states a specific verb (Get) and resource (GB News top stories) and clarifies the scope (latest 30). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from near-identical siblings like gbnews_headlines or gbnews_article, so an agent cannot tell from this text alone which of the GB News tools 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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to the sibling tools (gbnews_headlines, gbnews_article, gbnews_sections). The agent is left to infer that this is the 'top stories' feed versus a headlines or single-article tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.