Fetch current News18 top stories as structured data, returning titles and URLs with optional summaries, authors, publication times, and images.
Get News18 top stories. Returns the current News18 top stories, with no parameters. Each item has a title and URL, and may include summary, author, publication time and image. Use news18-headlines to read one 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the call takes no parameters and enumerates the returned item fields (title, URL, summary, author, publication time, image), but says nothing about result count, ordering/freshness, or pagination behavior.
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?
Short and front-loaded, with purpose first, return shape second, and the sibling pointer last. Slight redundancy between 'Get News18 top stories' and 'Returns the current News18 top stories' costs a point.
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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return shape (item fields) and the sibling routing. Missing freshness/ordering detail keeps it from being fully complete, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is 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 the schema imposes nothing to document. The description confirms the no-parameter nature ('with no parameters'), which is the baseline expectation for an empty-parameter tool.
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 News18 top stories') and explicitly routes the agent elsewhere for sectional content ('Use `news18-headlines` to read one section'). An agent can distinguish it from news18_headlines, news18_article, and news18_author without opening schemas.
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?
Names the sibling alternative and the condition that selects it (reading one section). It gives clear context for the primary use (top stories) but does not spell out when top-stories would be preferred over an article-level fetch, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.