Get Space.com top stories covering space, astronomy, and skywatching news from its news hub.
Get Space.com top stories. Returns fresh Space.com top stories (space, astronomy, and skywatching news) from the site's own latest-news hub.
| 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 provided, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it 'Returns fresh Space.com top stories', which is a read-only action by implication, but it does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the response structure looks like. This is minimal disclosure beyond the obvious.
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 very short and gets to the point. The second sentence adds the content categories and the source hub, which is useful but somewhat redundant ('top stories' is repeated). It is efficient overall, though it could be merged into one tighter sentence.
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 tool, the purpose and source are clear, but the description does not indicate what the returned data will look like (e.g., list of article titles, links, timestamps). Since there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return format to be fully complete. It falls short of that.
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 the input schema is empty. According to the rubric, 0 params deserves a baseline score of 4 because there is nothing to explain. The description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.
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 action ('Get') and the specific resource ('Space.com top stories'), and adds the scope of content (space, astronomy, skywatching news) and the source hub ('latest-news hub'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like space_article, space_author, or space_headlines, even though it doesn't name them explicitly.
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 when to use this tool: when the agent needs the freshest Space.com top stories from the site's own news hub. It gives clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. For a parameterless tool with obvious purpose, this is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.