Fetch Mirror's current top stories as structured JSON with titles, URLs, and optional summaries, authors, timestamps, and images. Use it to monitor headlines without selecting a section.
Get Mirror top stories. Returns the current Mirror top stories, with no parameters. Each item has a title and URL, and may include summary, author, publication time and image. Use mirror-headlines to read a single section.
| 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 burden. It discloses the read nature of the call ('Get', 'Returns'), that there are no parameters, and the shape of each returned item including which fields are optional. It does not mention permissions, caching, or freshness/rate limits, which keeps it short of a 5 for an annotation-free 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?
Three short sentences that are strictly front-loaded: purpose first, return shape second, sibling routing last. Every sentence carries distinct information and none is redundant.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields (title, URL, optional summary/author/time/image) and the routing alternative, which is sufficient for a parameterless read tool. Only heavier behavioral details (auth, rate limits, update frequency) are absent.
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 per the baseline this scores 4. The description reinforces this explicitly ('with no parameters'), removing any doubt an agent might have about needing to supply arguments.
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 and resource ('Get Mirror top stories') and immediately names the sibling it is not ('Use mirror-headlines to read a single section'). An agent can distinguish it from mirror_headlines, mirror_sections, and mirror_article without opening any 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?
Gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it ('mirror-headlines to read a single section'), which is real routing guidance. However, it does not address the other closely related siblings (mirror_sections, mirror_article), so the when-not coverage is partial rather than complete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.