Retrieve The Telegraph top stories from its public RSS feed, returning clean JSON when upstream access permits.
Get The Telegraph top stories. Returns fresh public The Telegraph stories from its RSS feed when the upstream security layer permits 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. It discloses that stories are 'fresh' and that availability depends on an 'upstream security layer', which hints at potential rate limiting or access restrictions. However, it does not explain what happens when the security layer blocks the request, nor does it describe the return format or any other behavioral nuances.
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, no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the conditional note is added without redundancy. Ideal conciseness.
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?
The tool is a simple zero-parameter fetch, but with no output schema, the description should clarify what 'top stories' entails (e.g., count, format, fields). It only says 'Returns fresh public The Telegraph stories' without detailing the shape. This is adequate for a basic list tool but leaves some ambiguity about the response structure.
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?
There are zero parameters and the schema is empty (coverage 100%). The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds nothing about parameters since there are none. It correctly implies a parameterless fetch.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'The Telegraph top stories', distinguishing it from sibling tools like telegraph_headlines, telegraph_article, and telegraph_sections. The purpose is unambiguous.
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 tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that telegraph_headlines or telegraph_news might be more appropriate for general headlines, nor does it exclude any use case. The description is purely functional with no routing context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.