Retrieves current Kotaku top gaming stories with titles, URLs, summaries, authors, publication times, and images in structured JSON for quick news review.
Get Kotaku top stories. Returns Kotaku's current top gaming stories, with no parameters. Each item has its title, URL, summary, author, publication time and image where Kotaku provides them. Use kotaku-headlines for a single section instead.
| 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 full disclosure burden and does reasonably well: it states the call takes no parameters and enumerates the returned fields (title, URL, summary, author, publication time, image) with the hedge "where Kotaku provides them." It omits item count, update cadence, and pagination behavior, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by return shape and then the sibling routing hint. No filler and nothing that restates structured data unnecessarily.
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 must describe the return payload, and it does so field by field. For a simple zero-parameter feed this is nearly complete; only the number of items and refresh behavior are left unspecified.
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 is 4. The description reinforces this explicitly with "with no parameters," which is accurate and removes any doubt about whether filtering arguments exist.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Get Kotaku top stories") and immediately scopes it as "Kotaku's current top gaming stories, with no parameters." It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `kotaku-headlines`, so an agent can route between them without opening either 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?
It names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it: "Use `kotaku-headlines` for a single section instead." That is a clear routing rule. It stops short of a full when/when-not framing (e.g. no guidance on pagination or freshness limits), so it lands just below the top band.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.