Retrieve current top stories from The Straits Times public page as clean JSON, enabling news aggregation and analysis.
Get The Straits Times top stories. Returns fresh The Straits Times top stories from its public top-stories page.
| 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 full burden. It discloses that it uses a 'public top-stories page' (implying no auth), but provides no details about freshness, pagination, or output format. For a read-only feed tool, this is minimal but not misleading.
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?
Two sentences, very brief. The second sentence is slightly redundant ('top stories' repeated and 'public top-stories page' reiterated), but the description is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.
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, no-output-schema tool, the description provides enough: it names the resource, the source, and the nature of the data (top stories). It could mention return format, but that's a minor gap given the simplicity.
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, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds context about the resource (top stories from a public page) but no parameter-level detail is needed. Per the calibration rule for 0-param tools, a 4 is appropriate because the description is sufficient.
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 action (Get) and resource (The Straits Times top stories), and identifies the data source as the public top-stories page. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like straitstimes_headlines or straitstimes_article, though the name 'news' and the phrase 'top stories' imply a distinct feed.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when to prefer it over other ST tools (headlines, sections, article). The description only states what it does, not when to select it, so agents may not know if this is the right choice for a given request.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.