Fetches Manchester Evening News top stories as structured JSON, including titles, URLs, summaries, authors, publication times, and images where available.
Get Manchester Evening News top stories. Returns the Manchester Evening News' current top stories, with no parameters. Each item has its title, URL, summary, author, publication time and image where available.
| 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 does disclose the useful behavioral facts that the call takes no parameters and that results are 'current' (i.e., a live, unfiltered feed), but it says nothing about freshness window, result count, pagination or whether the list is cached.
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?
Front-loaded and short, but the second sentence ('Returns the Manchester Evening News' current top stories') largely restates the first sentence's 'top stories', spending a full clause on redundant information.
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?
There is no output schema, so enumerating the returned fields (title, URL, summary, author, publication time, image where available) is genuinely valuable and compensates well for the simple, parameterless interface. The one missing piece is how this feed differs from the sibling men_headlines tool.
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 explicitly confirms 'with no parameters', which removes any ambiguity about whether a query argument is expected.
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 ('Get') and resource ('Manchester Evening News top stories'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. However, it never distinguishes itself from the close siblings men_headlines, men_article, men_author and men_sections, so an agent must guess which of the MEN tools to pick.
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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite four sibling tools (men_headlines, men_article, men_sections, men_author) that overlap heavily. The only scoping hint is the implicit 'top stories' framing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.