Fetch current SBS News top stories in structured JSON, including titles, article URLs, summaries, publication times, authors, and images. Use it to monitor Australian headlines without scraping.
Get SBS News top stories. Returns the current SBS News Top Stories. Takes no parameters. Each item has its title, canonical SBS News article URL and summary, with publication time, author and image when present.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return payload (title, canonical URL, summary, publication time, author, image when present), which is real value given there is no output schema. It does not, however, mention item count, refresh cadence, pagination, or auth requirements.
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?
Front-loaded with the purpose, which is good, but the first two sentences are near-duplicates ('Get SBS News top stories' / 'Returns the current SBS News Top Stories') and waste space. The payload sentence is the only one that earns its place beyond the opening clause.
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 feed tool with no output schema, the description gives the agent enough: what it returns and the shape of each item. Only minor gaps remain (volume of items, ordering/freshness guarantees), which are secondary for a snapshot endpoint.
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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description reinforces this with 'Takes no parameters,' removing any ambiguity about how to invoke it.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get SBS News top stories') and names the exact scope ('current SBS News Top Stories'). An agent can distinguish it from sbsnews_headlines or sbsnews_article, though the sibling set is dense with near-synonyms and the description does not call out which alternative to prefer.
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 lack of parameters implies a simple exhaustive fetch, and read as a top-stories feed the usage is largely self-evident. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance nor any named alternative (sbsnews_headlines, sbsnews_sections), so selection against siblings is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.