Fetch News.com.au top stories as structured JSON, returning each item's title and URL plus optional summary, author, publication time, and image for quick news monitoring.
Get News.com.au top stories. Returns the current News.com.au top stories, with no parameters and no section filter. Each item has a title and URL, and may include summary, author, publication time and 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return payload and its optional fields (summary, author, publication time, image), which is real behavioral context. It says nothing about read-only safety, caching, rate limits, or result count, so coverage is partial.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly redundant in restating 'News.com.au top stories' in the second sentence, but no real waste.
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 no-param list tool with no output schema, the description adequately describes the returned item shape and optional fields. The main missing piece is differentiation from sibling tools like newscomau_headlines, but nothing needed to invoke the call 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?
Zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4; the description confirms 'no parameters and no section filter', which removes any ambiguity about arguments. No further parameter detail is possible.
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 News.com.au top stories') and clarifies there is no section filter, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. However, it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling newscomau_headlines, leaving the top-stories vs headlines distinction to inference.
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 'no parameters and no section filter' phrasing implies when it applies (getting the unfiltered top list) versus parameterized siblings, which is a partial cue. But no alternative tool is named and no when-not-to-use condition is given, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.