Retrieve The Sydney Morning Herald's top stories as structured JSON. Get each headline's title, URL, summary, author, publication time, and lead image directly from the latest news feed.
Get The Sydney Morning Herald top stories. Returns The Sydney Morning Herald's current "Latest News" public RSS feed: each story's title, canonical URL, summary, author, publication time, and lead image.
| 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 present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the tool returns a 'public RSS feed' and lists the included story fields, which gives agents a reasonable expectation of read-only, unauthenticated behavior. However, it does not mention result limits, freshness, or other operational traits.
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 only two sentences and is front-loaded with the primary action. It repeats 'The Sydney Morning Herald' twice, but otherwise every sentence adds useful information about the feed and its contents.
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 returning a known RSS feed, the description is largely complete: it identifies the source, the kind of data, and the fields returned. It could mention item count or update cadence, but an agent can invoke and interpret this tool without significant ambiguity.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100% and there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The description correctly focuses on the output rather than parameters, which is appropriate for a no-argument 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 specific verb and resource ('Get The Sydney Morning Herald top stories') and then clarifies the exact data source ('Latest News' public RSS feed) plus the returned fields. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like smh_headlines or smh_sections.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as smh_headlines, smh_article, or smh_author. It implies it is for the latest news feed, but there are no exclusions or alternative routing hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.