Fetch top science news stories from Live Science's RSS feed to get current headlines and summaries for science-related updates.
Get Live Science top stories. Returns fresh Live Science top stories from the 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the source (public RSS feed) implying no authentication, and notes freshness, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or whether full articles are included. This is minimal but not misleading for a simple fetch tool.
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 extremely concise, two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and includes the source. Every word serves a function, making it highly efficient.
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 no-parameter tool, the description is adequate but not rich. It does not specify the output structure (e.g., list of story objects with fields) since there is no output schema. It could mention that it returns a list of story titles and links, but given the simplicity, it is minimally complete.
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, and the schema is empty. Per rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exist, so this score is appropriate.
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 tool retrieves Live Science top stories from the public RSS feed. It distinguishes from siblings like livescience_headlines or livescience_sections by specifying 'top stories' rather than generic headlines or sections, but it does not explicitly contrast with these alternatives.
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 siblings such as livescience_headlines or livescience_article. It simply describes the action without indicating selection criteria or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.