Fetch Page Six top stories from its public RSS feed, delivering fresh entertainment news headlines in structured JSON.
Get Page Six top stories. Returns fresh Page Six top stories from its public RSS feed.
| 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?
The description discloses that the data comes from a public RSS feed and that it returns 'fresh' stories, which implies a read-only operation without authentication. However, it does not specify any rate limits, pagination, or output format details. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but only offers partial behavioral context.
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 concise, consisting of two sentences with no extraneous detail. It front-loads the primary action ('Get Page Six top stories') and follows with source context in the second sentence, making it efficient and well-structured.
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-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers the essential purpose and data source. It lacks details about the response structure (e.g., whether it returns an array of titles, links, etc.), but with no output schema, this is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.
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, so the schema is empty. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate because there are no parameters to describe, and the description does not need to add parameter information. This is a straightforward case where the schema already covers everything.
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 uses the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource 'Page Six top stories.' It clearly indicates that the tool returns top stories from Page Six's public RSS feed. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like pagesix_headlines or pagesix_article, leaving some ambiguity about unique scope.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pagesix_headlines or pagesix_article. The description does not mention under what circumstances one should select this over related Page Six tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.