Fetch Sky Sports top stories from its public RSS feed to get current headlines for news monitoring and content aggregation.
Get Sky Sports top stories. Returns the latest Sky Sports 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 burden. It discloses that the data comes from a public RSS feed and is 'latest' top stories, implying freshness and no authentication requirement. But it does not cover rate limits, pagination, or the number of stories returned, leaving gaps for a no-param feed.
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 short and front-loaded, but the second sentence largely restates the first ('Get Sky Sports top stories' vs 'Returns the latest Sky Sports top stories') while adding only the RSS source detail. Slight redundancy, but nothing egregious.
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 simple, parameterless feed with no output schema, the description explains the data source and content type. However, it omits useful details like approximate result count, return format, or update frequency, which would help an agent set expectations.
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 the schema requires no documentation. The description appropriately avoids discussing parameters; baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.
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 Sky Sports top stories') and specifies the source ('public RSS feed'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like skysports_headlines or skysports_sections, which also serve news content from the same publisher.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as skysports_headlines or skysports_article. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer its place among similar news-retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.