Retrieve IGN's current gaming, film, and TV headlines, including titles, URLs, summaries, authors, and publish times.
Get IGN top stories. Returns IGN's current top stories on gaming and entertainment, with no parameters. Each item has its title and URL, plus summary, author, publication time and image when the outlet provides them, covering games, film and TV news in one list.
| 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 and does reasonably well: it enumerates the returned fields (title, URL, summary, author, publication time, image) and notes the conditional 'when the outlet provides them'. It doesn't mention auth needs, rate limits, or result count/caching, but discloses more behavioral detail than the schema could.
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?
Front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then details. The second sentence is dense but every clause (coverage domains, field list, conditional fields) adds information. Slightly run-on, not wasteful.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description appropriately explains the return shape; combined with the zero-param interface, an agent has what it needs to call it. Minor gap: no indication of item count or freshness.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly notes there are no parameters rather than inventing any. Nothing further is needed.
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?
Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get IGN top stories') and scopes it to gaming and entertainment coverage, which separates it from siblings like ign_headlines, ign_sections, and ign_article. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.
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?
Usage is implied by the zero-parameter, top-stories nature ('no parameters'), but the description never states when to prefer this over ign_headlines or ign_sections. Adequate context, no explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.