Fetches top stories from Radio New Zealand's all-news RSS feed, returning clean JSON for current news updates.
Get RNZ top stories. Returns fresh RNZ (Radio New Zealand) top stories from the public all-news 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. It states it returns fresh stories from a public RSS feed, which implies it is a safe read operation, but it does not disclose any potential limitations, response format, or rate limits. The minimal detail leaves the agent without important behavioral context.
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, front-loaded with the main action, and no redundant words. Every word adds value; it is appropriately concise for a simple tool.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple parameterless retrieval tool, stating what it returns and the source. However, it does not mention the number of stories, output structure, or any exclusions, and it lacks any guidance on alternatives, leaving some gaps for an agent fully evaluating its use.
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 no parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. According to the rubric, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4, 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 tool gets 'RNZ top stories' from a public all-news RSS feed, identifying the resource and source. It is specific about what it does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like rnz_headlines or rnz_sections, so it is not 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 alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest other tools for different needs, leaving the agent to infer based on the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.