Fetch Sky Sports top stories as structured JSON with title, URL, summary, publication time, and image for news feeds and monitoring.
Get Sky Sports top stories. Returns the 20 latest Sky Sports top stories. Takes no parameters. Each item has its title, canonical www.skysports.com article URL, summary, publication time and image.
| 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?
With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does reasonably well: it discloses the result cap (20), that no parameters are required, and the shape of each item (title, canonical skysports.com URL, summary, publication time, image). It does not state ordering guarantees, refresh cadence, or any rate limit, but that is a modest gap for a public news 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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then the count, then the return shape. There is mild redundancy between 'Get Sky Sports top stories' and 'Returns the 20 latest Sky Sports top stories,' but nothing wasteful enough to penalize heavily.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, the description is the only source of truth, and it covers return count and item fields adequately. The missing piece is disambiguation from skysports_headlines, the one thing an agent most needs given the sibling list.
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?
Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description explicitly confirms 'Takes no parameters,' which matches the empty schema and removes any doubt about whether hidden inputs are needed.
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 Sky Sports top stories,' and quantifies scope as 'the 20 latest.' However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling skysports_headlines, leaving the agent to guess which feed to call.
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 when-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives such as skysports_headlines, skysports_article, or skysports_sections. Usage is only implied by the resource name, which is exactly the ambiguity a sibling like skysports_headlines creates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.