Fetch current ScienceAlert top stories from its public RSS feed, returning clean JSON for science news summaries, monitoring, and updates.
Get ScienceAlert top stories. Returns fresh ScienceAlert top stories from its public RSS feed.
| 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 discloses only that content comes from a public RSS feed, which implies a read-only fetch, but says nothing about rate limits, caching/freshness, or response shape for what is described as 'fresh' content.
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 where the second largely restates the first ('top stories' appears twice, 'Get' vs 'Returns'). The RSS-source detail is a small value add, but half the text is redundant.
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, annotation-free, output-schema-free tool, the description identifies the source (public RSS) but omits what an agent would want: whether the result is a feed list, whether it is read-only, and how it differs from the sibling headlines tool.
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, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies, with nothing in the description misrepresenting inputs.
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 and resource: 'Get ScienceAlert top stories' from 'its public RSS feed'. That is enough for an agent to know what it does. However, it offers no differentiation from the near-identical sibling sciencealert_headlines, so it does not fully earn 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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives. The sibling sciencealert_headlines looks like the obvious alternative and is never mentioned, so the agent must infer the routing itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.