Fetch Evening Standard top stories from its public RSS feed to deliver current headlines in structured JSON.
Get Evening Standard top stories. Returns fresh Evening Standard top stories from its public RSS feed.
| 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 disclosure burden. It does disclose that the data comes from a public RSS feed and is 'fresh,' which implies a read-only, recurring feed. However, it does not mention return format, number of stories, or any caching/pagination behavior, leaving some ambiguity.
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 with the primary action. The second sentence adds useful context about the RSS feed source, though it partially repeats 'top stories' from the first sentence. Overall it is efficient with no significant filler.
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, the description is minimally viable: it names the resource, the source, and the freshness of the data. Still, with no output schema, it does not describe what the returned top stories look like or how the agent should consume them, so richer detail would improve completeness.
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 schema confirms this with an empty properties object. Since there is nothing for the agent to configure, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics; the baseline score of 4 applies.
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 Evening Standard top stories.' It adds that these come from a public RSS feed, which clarifies the retrieval source. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling standard_headlines, but the 'top stories' framing gives enough distinction from article/author/sections tools.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as standard_article, standard_author, standard_headlines, or standard_sections. There is no 'use when...' or 'for X instead use Y' language, so an agent must infer usage entirely from the name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.