Retrieve current top stories from Manchester Evening News using its public RSS feed, returning clean JSON for news aggregation or media monitoring.
Get Manchester Evening News top stories. Returns fresh Manchester Evening News top stories from the public News 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 behavioral burden. It adds useful context by stating the data comes from the public News RSS feed and that stories are 'fresh,' implying a read-only, publicly accessible source. It does not mention output format or rate limits, but for a simple no-parameter feed tool this is reasonably transparent.
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 short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and the source/freshness detail in the second. There is minor repetition of 'Manchester Evening News top stories,' but every sentence adds some value.
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 tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, the source (public RSS feed), and the freshness of the data. It does not describe the exact return structure, but this is a minor gap for a simple top-stories feed.
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, so the description has no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no parameter burden at all.
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 a specific action ('Get') and resource ('Manchester Evening News top stories'), so an agent knows what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool men_headlines, which likely serves a similar purpose.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as men_headlines, men_article, or men_sections. The description implies use for top stories but does not state exclusions or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.