Retrieve top stories from inews.co.uk via its public RSS feed, including summary, author, publish time, and lead image. Use for quick news updates.
Get i top stories. Returns fresh i (inews.co.uk) top stories from the site's public RSS feed, with summary, author, publish time, and lead image when present.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the data comes from a public RSS feed, that stories are 'fresh', and what fields the response contains, including the conditional lead image. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare name, though it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or response format details.
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 concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then efficiently enumerates the response fields. Every sentence 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the source (public RSS feed), the resource (top stories), and the shape of the returned data (summary, author, publish time, lead image when present). An agent can invoke it and understand the result without further context.
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 says nothing about parameters, which is correct because there are none to document.
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') and resource ('i top stories'), and adds detail about the RSS feed source and returned fields (summary, author, publish time, lead image). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like inews_headlines or inews_sections, but the mention of a public RSS feed and the specific returned fields makes the purpose reasonably distinct.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., inews_headlines, inews_article, inews_sections). The description implies the use case—fetching top stories—but provides no exclusions, alternatives, or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.