Retrieve top New Zealand news stories from Stuff's site-wide feed. Returns structured JSON with titles, URLs, summaries, authors, timestamps, and images.
Get Stuff top stories. Returns the latest Stuff (New Zealand) top stories from the site-wide feed. Takes no parameters. Each item has its title, URL, summary, publication time, author and image where the feed provides them.
| 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 helpfully discloses that the tool takes no parameters and enumerates the returned fields (title, URL, summary, publication time, author, image), which is useful output context. It says nothing about freshness guarantees, item counts, pagination, or rate limits, leaving behavioral gaps.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose before the return detail. Efficient, though the 'Takes no parameters' sentence is mildly redundant against an empty schema.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return shape (title, URL, summary, time, author, image), which is the key missing structured information. The main gap is that it does not disambiguate from the sibling stuff_headlines, but for a parameterless feed tool this is otherwise reasonably complete.
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, which sets the baseline at 4. The description explicitly confirms 'Takes no parameters,' removing any ambiguity about invocation.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get Stuff top stories') and clarifies it is the New Zealand site-wide feed, so the agent knows exactly what content is returned. However, it does not distinguish itself from the very similar sibling stuff_headlines, which appears to also surface Stuff's top stories.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus stuff_headlines, stuff_sections, or stuff_article. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria — the agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.