Fetch ScreenRant top stories from its public RSS feed and return clean JSON, so apps and agents can display current entertainment news headlines.
Get ScreenRant top stories. Returns fresh ScreenRant 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 states the tool returns fresh stories from a public RSS feed, which hints at no authentication and data freshness, but it does not disclose the response format, potential size limit, or whether it returns article summaries vs full text. This is thin for a tool with zero annotations.
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?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the key purpose and immediately provides the source context. Very efficient.
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 tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it tells the agent what it gets. However, it lacks information on the structure of the output (e.g., list of article objects, fields), which could be relevant for downstream processing, but given no output schema, the description could be more explicit.
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, so the description does not need to explain any. The schema has 100% coverage since there are no properties, and the description adds the context that it is a simple fetch with no inputs required, which is sufficient.
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 fetches ScreenRant top stories from its public RSS feed, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from other news tools by naming 'top stories' specifically, and the sibling list includes screenrant_headlines and screenrant_sections, so an agent can infer this is a distinct endpoint for top stories.
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 a use case (retrieving top stories) but does not explicitly say when to use this over siblings like screenrant_article or screenrant_headlines. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.