Retrieve top Jerusalem Post stories from its public front-page RSS feed, returning fresh non-premium articles while omitting premium snippets.
Get Jerusalem Post top stories. Returns fresh non-premium Jerusalem Post stories from its public front-page RSS feed. Premium feed snippets are omitted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful traits: content comes from a public RSS feed, only non-premium stories are returned, and premium snippets are omitted. This preempts an agent wondering why some content is missing. Return shape and any ordering/recency guarantees are still unstated.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with each subsequent sentence adding a distinct fact (source, premium exclusion). Nothing is padded or repeated.
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, output-schema-less feed tool, the description covers what is returned and what is filtered out. The one real gap is that it never explains how it differs from jerusalempost_headlines, leaving a genuine selection ambiguity in a dense sibling set.
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 the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument feed call, and there is nothing further 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get Jerusalem Post top stories') and clarifies the source granularity (front-page RSS). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling jerusalempost_headlines, which an agent would reasonably consider an overlapping alternative.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not guidance is given, and no sibling is named as an alternative despite jerusalempost_headlines and jerusalempost_sections existing in the same family. The agent must infer selection criteria 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.