Fetch Gizmodo top stories from its public RSS feed to get fresh news headlines in clean JSON.
Get Gizmodo top stories. Returns fresh Gizmodo stories from its 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 of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by identifying the source as a public RSS feed and emphasizing freshness, but it does not describe the output shape, story count, or any other behavioral details. It is not misleading, but it is minimal.
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 short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded ('Get Gizmodo top stories') and the second sentence adds the only meaningful extra context: the public RSS feed source and freshness.
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 no-parameter, read-only RSS feed tool, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, the source, and the freshness expectation. It does not describe the return format, but the tool's simplicity and lack of parameters make this a minor gap rather than a blocking one.
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 coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema fully handles the parameter side and the description does not need to compensate.
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 and resource: 'Get Gizmodo top stories' and clarifies it returns fresh stories from the public RSS feed. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like gizmodo_headlines or gizmodo_news-style tools.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gizmodo_headlines, gizmodo_article, or gizmodo_sections. The description implies a use case for top stories but does not state exclusions or preferred conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.