Fetch current Globe and Mail top stories, returning titles, URLs, summaries, authors, publication times, and lead images for news monitoring or feeds.
Get the latest Globe and Mail stories. Returns The Globe and Mail's current public top-stories 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.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the feed is 'public' and 'current' and enumerates the output fields, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination, story count limits, ordering, or any potential rate limits or freshness caveats.
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 sentences, front-loads the core action, and every sentence adds value. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second specifies exactly what the response contains without redundancy.
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 news feed tool, the description is largely complete: it names the source, the feed type, and the returned fields. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit field list, though pagination or result-count details would make it fully complete.
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, so the schema already fully covers parameter semantics. The description correctly adds no parameter-related noise, and the baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate.
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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('latest Globe and Mail stories'), and the specific feed ('current public top-stories feed'). It also lists the returned fields, which helps distinguish it from article, author, and section tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling globeandmail_headlines.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool: when you need the latest Globe and Mail top stories. However, it provides no explicit guidance about alternatives such as globeandmail_headlines, globeandmail_article, or globeandmail_sections, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.