Fetch The Hollywood Reporter's entertainment-industry stories from its public RSS feed, returning structured JSON for news monitoring and content curation.
Get The Hollywood Reporter top stories. Returns fresh The Hollywood Reporter entertainment-industry top 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 specifying the source as a 'public RSS feed' and characterizing results as 'fresh', implying a read-only retrieval operation. However, it does not describe return structure, item format, or any potential limitations.
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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence adds value by mentioning freshness and the RSS source, though it partially repeats 'top stories' and 'The Hollywood Reporter', creating minor 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema, low-complexity feed tool, the description is mostly complete: it names the source, content type, and freshness. It could be stronger by clarifying the returned item structure or distinguishing itself from sibling headlines tools, but these are minor gaps given the simplicity.
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 baseline is 4. The description appropriately implies that the tool requires no input and simply returns the current top stories, which is sufficient for parameter understanding.
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 identifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('The Hollywood Reporter top stories'), and content domain ('entertainment-industry top stories'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related sibling hollywoodreporter_headlines, which likely serves a similar purpose.
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 states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling news/headline tools. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or selection criteria, so an agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.