Fetch Rappler's top news stories from their public RSS feed, returning fresh articles as structured JSON.
Get Rappler top stories. Returns fresh Rappler stories from the public site-wide 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the source (public site-wide RSS feed) and that stories are fresh, which adds context. However, it does not disclose pagination, limits, return structure, or any other operational details, leaving some gaps for a simple read tool.
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 extremely concise—two sentences with no extraneous words. It fronts the primary action ('Get Rappler top stories') and immediately clarifies the source and freshness, achieving efficiency without sacrificing clarity.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description communicates what it returns (top/fresh stories) and the source (RSS feed). While it could specify the exact return format (e.g., list of titles/links), the simplicity of the tool makes this sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description correctly does not need to explain parameters. Per rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools, and the description provides sufficient context about the tool's output.
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 identifies the tool's function with a specific verb and resource ('Get Rappler top stories') and notes it returns fresh stories from the public site-wide RSS feed. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like rappler_headlines or rappler_sections, the purpose is unambiguous and distinct.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or reference to related tools such as rappler_headlines or rappler_sections, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage without support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.