Fetch top stories from Salon's public RSS feed as structured JSON for news tracking, research, or content monitoring.
Get Salon top stories. Returns fresh Salon 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a read from a public RSS feed and returns 'fresh' stories, which implies no auth and low risk. However, it says nothing about response format, pagination, or rate limits, leaving some uncertainty.
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 short sentences with no redundancy. The primary action is front-loaded, and every word adds meaningful information.
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 no-parameter, read-only RSS feed tool, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly. The absence of an output schema is somewhat mitigated by the straightforward nature of the result, though a note about the returned shape would improve completeness. It also leaves unclear how it differs from salon_headlines.
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. Baseline 4 applies because there are no parameters to document, and the description still clarifies the data source and type of 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 uses a clear verb and resource ('Get Salon top stories') and adds a source detail ('public RSS feed'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like salon_headlines or salon_sections, but 'top stories' is a distinct enough scope.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for Salon top stories, but it never mentions that salon_headlines or salon_sections should be used for other content types, nor states exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.