Fetch current top stories from Punch's public RSS feed to stay informed with clean, structured JSON data.
Get Punch top stories. Returns fresh Punch 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?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the source is a public RSS feed, which implies no authentication is needed, and notes that stories are 'fresh.' It does not describe return format, failure behavior, or how 'top' is determined, but for a simple read-only fetch this is acceptable.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the added detail about the public RSS feed earns its place.
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 zero-parameter RSS retrieval tool, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, the source, and the freshness expectation. It omits output structure, but the lack of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation keep this from being a significant gap.
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 and an empty input schema, so no parameter-level information is needed. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 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 uses a specific verb and resource combination: 'Get Punch top stories.' This makes the tool's purpose clear to an agent. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like punch_headlines or punch_article, so it stops 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling Punch tools. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent decide between punch_news, punch_headlines, or punch_article.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.