Fetch Raw Story's top stories from its public RSS feed. Delivers current news headlines for monitoring or aggregation.
Get Raw Story top stories. Returns fresh Raw Story 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the data source (public site-wide RSS feed) and freshness ('fresh'), which adds useful context. However, it doesn't describe return format, pagination, or any limits. For a simple read-only feed tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The core action and source are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds useful context about the feed. Every word 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, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what it returns and where the data comes from. The only minor gap is not describing the shape of the returned stories (e.g., titles, links, dates), but with no output schema and a simple feed tool, this is a small omission.
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, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds meaning by explaining what the feed contains ('top stories', 'fresh', 'public site-wide RSS feed'), which helps an agent understand what it will get without needing any parameters. Baseline 4 for zero-param tools 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('Raw Story top stories'), and a source ('public site-wide RSS feed'). It clearly identifies what the tool returns. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like rawstory_headlines or rawstory_news, though the 'top stories' and 'RSS feed' phrasing provides some differentiation.
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 usage context: it's for fetching top stories from Raw Story's public RSS feed. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like rawstory_headlines or rawstory_article, nor does it mention any exclusions. The context is clear enough for a simple no-parameter tool, but explicit routing guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.