Fetch top stories from Metro (metro.co.uk) with summaries, authors, publish times, and lead images via public RSS feed.
Get Metro top stories. Returns fresh Metro (metro.co.uk) top stories from the site's public RSS feed, with summary, author, publish time, and lead image when present.
| 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (public RSS feed), freshness ('fresh'), and the fields returned, including the conditional 'lead image when present.' It does not mention story count, ordering, or pagination, but for a simple read-only fetch 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?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The primary action and resource are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds relevant detail about the source and return fields.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential return values (summary, author, publish time, lead image) and the source. It does not specify the number of stories or the exact output structure, but it is largely complete for an agent to call it correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output rather than inputs.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Metro top stories'), and further clarifies the source (metro.co.uk public RSS feed) and the returned fields (summary, author, publish time, lead image). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like metro_article, metro_author, and metro_headlines by focusing on top stories from the RSS feed.
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 usage is implied: an agent would use this when it needs Metro top stories. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools such as metro_headlines or metro_article, and no exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.