Fetch current top stories from The National UAE via its public RSS feed to support news monitoring and aggregation.
Get The National top stories. Returns current The National UAE stories from its public Arc RSS feed. Article and section extraction uses anonymous public responses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the source ('public Arc RSS feed') and that extraction relies on anonymous public responses, which is meaningful context about data provenance and auth-free access. It does not describe caching, rate limits, ordering, or freshness, so it is partially but not fully 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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by implementation/source context. No padding or repetition, though the second sentence's phrasing about 'anonymous public responses' is slightly awkward.
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 parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough to call it, but it does not tell the agent what fields/structure to expect or how this feed relates to the many sibling National endpoints. The missing sibling differentiation leaves a meaningful gap in a crowded namespace.
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 cannot add parameter semantics for a parameterless tool, and it appropriately avoids fabricating any.
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 what the tool returns ('Get The National top stories') and names the source plus its feed type. However, it does not distinguish itself from the numerous other news-feed siblings (national_headlines, national_news, national_sections, national_article, etc.), so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which National endpoint 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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when not to use it, and no pointer to alternative tools such as national_headlines or national_news even though those siblings exist. The description just asserts what it returns.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.