Retrieve GQ's top stories from its public RSS feed to get current headlines and articles in clean JSON format.
Get GQ top stories. Returns fresh GQ 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. It discloses the data source ('public RSS feed') and freshness ('fresh'), which is useful, but it does not mention output format, result count, pagination, or potential delays. For a trivial no-parameter read tool this is adequate but not rich.
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 wasted words. The core action and source are front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.
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 parameterless tool with no output schema and simple read-only behavior, this description tells the agent everything needed to invoke it correctly: what it returns, its freshness, and its source. Nothing essential is missing.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the description need not explain any. The vacuous 100% schema coverage and empty properties object already communicate that no input is required, and the description adds no contradictory or missing param information.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('GQ top stories'), and source ('public RSS feed'), making the tool's function unmistakable. It clearly stands apart from sibling tools like gq_headlines or gq_sections by targeting the top stories feed specifically.
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 implied usage is clear: call this when you want GQ's latest top stories. However, the description never explicitly names alternatives or states when NOT to use it, though siblings like gq_article and gq_headlines exist and could overlap. A brief exclusion would strengthen it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.