Fetch Seattle Times top stories from its public RSS feed. Get fresh headlines and story summaries for news monitoring or content aggregation.
Get Seattle Times top stories. Returns fresh Seattle Times stories from the public site-wide 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 must carry the behavioral burden. It does reveal that this is a non-destructive read from a 'public site-wide RSS feed' and that results are 'fresh' stories. It stops short of describing output shape, story count, or any feed-level limits, and 'fresh' is not defined.
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 filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds useful source and freshness context without redundancy.
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, read-only RSS feed tool, the description covers what the tool does and where the data comes from. It does not explain whether returned items are headlines only or full stories, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, so it is not fully self-contained.
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 no required inputs, so the schema leaves nothing undocumented. No parameter guidance is needed, giving the baseline score of 4.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Get Seattle Times top stories' from the 'public site-wide RSS feed.' It distinguishes itself from seattletimes_article and seattletimes_sections, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the seattletimes_headlines sibling, so sibling differentiation is partial rather than complete.
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 intended use is implied: an agent should call this when it wants current Seattle Times top stories. However, there are no explicit selection criteria, exclusions, or mentions of alternative sibling tools, so routing still relies on inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.