Fetch current top stories from The Japan Times public RSS feed, returning headline teasers as structured data for quick news monitoring.
Get The Japan Times top stories. Returns current top stories from the public RSS feed. RSS descriptions are short publisher-provided teasers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits: the data comes from the public RSS feed (implying no auth) and RSS descriptions are short publisher teasers, which sets expectations about content depth. It omits result count, update cadence, and ordering, so it is partial rather than complete.
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?
Three tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded, followed by source and a caveat about content quality. No filler or 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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameters, the description supplies what an agent needs: what it returns, where it comes from, and the nature of the text payload. Missing only volume and freshness details, which are minor for a simple feed tool.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the schema or description contradicts or obscures this.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: get The Japan Times top stories, with the source (public RSS feed) named. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like japantimes_headlines or japantimes_article, which an agent must open separately to disambiguate.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as japantimes_headlines or japantimes_sections, and no conditions under which this tool is preferable. The agent is left to infer that this is a general top-stories feed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.