Fetch News24 top stories from the public homepage as structured JSON, including subscriber-only flags, to monitor current headlines without scraping.
Get News24 top stories. Returns fresh News24 top stories from the public homepage. Cards that News24 marks subscriber-only carry type "subscriber".
| 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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only operation by stating it returns fresh top stories from the public homepage, and adds the important detail about the subscriber-only card type. However, it doesn't mention response structure or any potential limitations, but for a simple news fetch this is adequate.
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 with no filler. The primary action 'Get News24 top stories' is front-loaded, and the subscriber-type detail is a single concise sentence. Every word earns its place.
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 news-fetch tool, the description is fairly complete. It tells what it returns and notes the subscriber-type field. It could be more explicit about the response format (e.g., fields per card), but given the lack of parameters and output schema, it provides enough 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 an empty schema, so the description correctly adds no parameter-specific information. With no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 is appropriate, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema coverage gaps.
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 clearly states the tool fetches News24 top stories from the public homepage, using a specific verb and resource. It also provides a distinctive detail about subscriber-only cards carrying a 'subscriber' type, which helps distinguish it from other News24 tools like news24_article or news24_headlines.
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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many sibling news tools. It doesn't mention alternatives, exclusions, or any selection criteria. For a tool with numerous related siblings, this is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.