Fetches Rolling Stone top stories from the public RSS feed, returning current headlines and articles as structured data for news aggregation or monitoring.
Get Rolling Stone top stories. Returns fresh Rolling Stone 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the data comes from a 'public RSS feed', which is useful behavioral context (no auth needed, likely read-only). However, it doesn't describe the return format, pagination, or whether the feed is cached or live. 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, zero waste. The core action and resource are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds the source context. 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 feed tool, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what it returns (top stories), where from (public RSS feed), and that it's fresh. The only minor gap is not describing the shape of the returned stories, but with no output schema and a simple feed, 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, and the schema is empty. The description correctly implies no input is needed, which is the key semantic information. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter-level detail. It does add the 'public RSS feed' context, which helps the agent understand there's no configuration required.
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 clear resource ('Rolling Stone top stories'), and a source ('public RSS feed'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling rollingstone_article and rollingstone_author by focusing on top stories, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings. The phrase 'fresh' adds a temporal nuance but is somewhat vague.
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 this is the go-to tool for Rolling Stone top stories, and the sibling list shows rollingstone_article and rollingstone_author as alternatives for other needs. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus those alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear enough for a simple feed tool but lacks explicit routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.