Fetch top US sports stories from Sporting News' public RSS feed. Returns current headlines and article links in JSON.
Get Sporting News top stories. Returns fresh top stories from the Sporting News US edition public RSS feed. Only the US edition (sportingnews.com/us) is covered.
| 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 provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that data comes from a public RSS feed, implies no authentication is needed, and clarifies the edition scope. For a zero-parameter read-only tool, this is meaningful and adequate context.
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?
Three short sentences with the primary action front-loaded. There is minor repetition of 'top stories', but every sentence adds useful information: what it gets, where it comes from, and its edition limitation.
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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it states what is returned, the source feed, and the geographic/edition scope. Nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly is missing.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly needs no parameter-level detail, and the empty input schema confirms no arguments are required.
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 names a specific action ('Get Sporting News top stories'), a specific source ('US edition public RSS feed'), and the freshness of the content. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like sportingnews_headlines or sportingnews_article, but the US-edition scope still gives useful differentiation.
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: fetch fresh Sporting News top stories from the US edition. The statement 'Only the US edition is covered' provides a useful when-not signal, but no alternative tools are mentioned for non-US editions or for related content types such as headlines or articles.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.