Pulls Kotaku's top gaming stories from its public RSS feed, providing structured JSON output for easy integration.
Get Kotaku top stories. Returns fresh Kotaku gaming stories from its public RSS feed.
| 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 burden. It discloses the data source (public RSS feed), freshness, and content type (gaming stories), but does not describe output format, limits, or any potential constraints. For a zero-parameter read-only tool this is adequate but not rich; it does not contradict anything since annotations are absent.
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?
Two sentences with no fluff, front-loaded with the core action ('Get Kotaku top stories') followed by the source and content type. Every word 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 simple zero-parameter news-feed tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the content, source, and freshness. It does not specify the exact return structure, but for an agent this is likely inferable from the tool's purpose and the lack of parameters.
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?
There are no parameters, so the schema provides no parameter information. The description adds no parameter-level details, but the absence of parameters makes this a baseline 4 per the rubric. The description correctly implies no inputs are required.
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 the resource 'Kotaku top stories', and specifies it returns fresh Kotaku gaming stories from the public RSS feed. This distinguishes it from related siblings like kotaku_headlines or kotaku_sections, and there is no ambiguity given the zero-parameter 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?
The description implies usage for retrieving top stories from Kotaku, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kotaku_headlines or kotaku_article. There is no when-not guidance or naming of sibling tools, so usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.