Fetch top New Zealand stories from Stuff's public site-wide feed and return fresh headlines as structured JSON for news monitoring, research, or feeds.
Get Stuff top stories. Returns fresh Stuff (New Zealand) top stories from the public site-wide 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it's a read operation for top stories, but doesn't disclose return format, pagination, freshness, sorting order, or limitations. It adds 'fresh' as a qualifier, implying recency but without specifics. For a no-parameter tool, the behavioral transparency is limited.
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 one sentence, front-loads the main action ('Get Stuff top stories'), and then provides context. It is concise but slightly redundant: 'top stories' and 'site-wide feed' repeat a bit, and 'fresh' adds little. Still, it's efficient and readable.
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?
Given that this is a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for invoking the tool: the agent knows it will return top stories from a public feed. However, it doesn't describe the shape of the return value (list of articles? titles? links?), which an agent might need to correctly parse the result. Also, it doesn't mention that no authentication is needed, though 'public' implies that. It's adequate but not rich.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description correctly identifies the input as none and the tool as a simple fetch. This is a case where the baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adequately conveys there is no input.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Get Stuff top stories' from the public site-wide feed. It clarifies the source (Stuff, New Zealand) and the scope (top stories, site-wide feed), distinguishing it from other Stuff tools like stuff_article, stuff_author, stuff_headlines, stuff_sections. However, 'top stories' and 'site-wide feed' are a bit redundant, and it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling news headline 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 implies when to use it: when you want top stories from Stuff's public site-wide feed. It gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives for specific queries like article lookup, author lookup, or section-specific news. The context signals show sibling tools like stuff_headlines, stuff_news, stuff_sections, stuff_article, stuff_author, but the description doesn't reference them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.