Retrieve top celebrity and entertainment stories from PEOPLE's homepage. Returns current stories as clean JSON.
Get PEOPLE top stories. Returns fresh PEOPLE celebrity and entertainment stories from the public homepage.
| 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'Returns fresh PEOPLE celebrity and entertainment stories', which indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation)Skip. However, it does not disclose details such as pagination, limits, or whether the response is a list, but for a simple no-parameter fetch this minimal context 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 a single concise sentence (16 words) that front-loads the purpose and adds one clarifying detail. There is no redundant or filler content.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what it does and what it returns. It could mention response format or additional metadata, but nothing critical is missing for a top-stories fetch.
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 parametersaren't, and the schema description coverage is 100% (empty object). Per the baseline for 0 params, the description need not add parameter semantics. The description adds no param info, which is appropriate.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'PEOPLE top stories', and adds scope with 'from the public homepage'. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like people_headlines or people_sections.
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 implies the usage context: fetch top stories from PEOPLE's homepage. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., people_headlines or people_news) and does not mention any exclusions or preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.