Fetch current PEOPLE celebrity and entertainment top stories, returning titles, URLs, and optional summaries, authors, publication times, and images.
Get PEOPLE top stories. Returns the current PEOPLE celebrity and entertainment 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly states the tool is a non-parameterized GET that returns current top stories and describes the shape of each item (title, URL, optional summary, author, publication time, image), which gives an agent good visibility into the response. It omits details like update frequency or list size, but for a read-only news endpoint this is largely sufficient.
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 front-loaded with the purpose, then adds scope and output details in three sentences. It is efficient, though the second sentence slightly repeats 'PEOPLE top stories' from the first, so it is not perfectly tight.
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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the lack of filters, and the return fields in enough detail for correct invocation. It does not explain list size or pagination, but those are likely fixed or irrelevant for a top-stories endpoint.
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?
There are zero parameters, which sets a baseline of 4. The description reinforces this by explicitly stating 'with no parameters', adding a small amount of clarity beyond the empty schema.
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 (Get) and resource (PEOPLE top stories) and clarifies scope with 'celebrity and entertainment top stories, with no parameters and no section filter'. It distinguishes from section-based and article-based siblings implicitly, but does not explicitly name the similar people_headlines tool, so it falls short of a full 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?
The phrase 'with no parameters and no section filter' implies the tool is for unfiltered top stories, which is a usage hint. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus people_headlines, people_sections, or people_article, leaving the choice to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.