Fetch top stories from PCMag as structured JSON, including titles, URLs, summaries, publication times, and author names when available.
Get PCMag top stories. Returns the current PCMag top stories, with no parameters. Each item has a title, canonical URL, summary, publication time and author name when available. Use pcmag-headlines to read one product or topic category.
| 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully enumerates return fields (title, canonical URL, summary, publication time, author), which substitutes for an output schema, but says nothing about freshness guarantees, caching, auth, or result limits. 'Get' implies read-only but this is never stated.
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 action and the sibling routing cue last. Minor redundancy between 'Get PCMag top stories' and 'Returns the current PCMag top stories', but overall efficient.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully describes the item shape, which is what an agent needs to know before calling. For a no-parameter list tool this is close to complete; only freshness/rate behavior is unaddressed.
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 baseline is 4. The description explicitly confirms 'with no parameters', removing any ambiguity about whether filtering is expected.
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 PCMag top stories') and names a sibling alternative ('pcmag-headlines') to disambiguate the two headline-style tools. It does not distinguish itself from other PCMag siblings like pcmag_article or pcmag_sections, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent: use pcmag-headlines for a single product or topic category, implying this tool is for the general top-stories feed. Clear context is given, though no explicit 'when not to use' for the remaining siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.