Fetch recent news stories from the public news sitemap, returning titles, URLs, publication times, keywords, and lead images, newest first.
Get NDTV latest stories. Returns the stories NDTV published in roughly the last two days, newest first, from its public news sitemap: title, canonical URL, publication time, keywords, and lead image.
| 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 exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does so well: it discloses that the tool reads NDTV's public news sitemap, limits results to roughly the last two days, orders newest first, and returns specific fields (title, canonical URL, publication time, keywords, lead image). It stops short of describing result limits, pagination, or empty-result behavior, but the read-only public nature is clearly conveyed.
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 two sentences and roughly 30 words. The core action is front-loaded ('Get NDTV latest stories'), and the second sentence adds only useful specifics – source, time window, ordering, and return fields – with no filler.
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 list tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers source, recency, ordering, and returned fields. It omits only a count/limit and empty-result behavior, which are minor for this use case but would make it fully self-sufficient.
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 there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description's field list adds value by telling the agent what each returned story contains, which is a helpful substitute for output schema information.
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 opens with 'Get NDTV latest stories' – a specific verb and resource. It further specifies the recency window ('roughly the last two days'), ordering ('newest first'), and returned fields, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ndtv_headlines, ndtv_article, and ndtv_sections.
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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. The phrase 'latest stories' implies this is the right tool for recent NDTV coverage, but the description does not tell an agent when to prefer ndtv_news over ndtv_headlines or when to follow up with ndtv_article for full content. Usage guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.