Fetch The Telegraph top stories with no parameters, returning titles, URLs, summaries, authors, publication times, and image URLs.
Get The Telegraph top stories. Returns the current top stories from The Telegraph. It takes no parameters. Each item has its title, URL and, where available, a summary, author, publication time, image URL and type. It can return an error when The Telegraph declines the request.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose two useful behavioral facts: the call takes no parameters, and it can return an error when The Telegraph declines the request. It still omits any auth, rate-limit, or freshness/caching 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?
Reasonably front-loaded, but the first two sentences are near-redundant ('Get The Telegraph top stories' / 'Returns the current top stories from The Telegraph'), so a sentence does not fully earn its place.
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 and no annotations, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (title, URL, and where available summary, author, publication time, image URL, type). That covers the main information need for a zero-parameter feed tool, leaving only error-condition detail and freshness unaddressed.
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 there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly states 'It takes no parameters,' reinforcing the empty schema.
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 The Telegraph top stories.' An agent knows what it fetches, but the description never distinguishes it from the very similar sibling telegraph_headlines, nor from telegraph_article or telegraph_sections.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the near-identical siblings telegraph_headlines and telegraph_sections. The agent must infer that this is the general 'top stories' entry point rather than something more specific.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.