Fetch The Hill top stories from its public RSS feed, returning clean JSON for news monitoring, briefings, or content curation.
Get The Hill top stories. Returns fresh The Hill top stories from its public RSS 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does add useful context by noting the data comes from a 'public RSS feed' and is 'fresh', which implies a safe, read-only operation. However, it does not mention response shape, number of stories, or any other behavior, so it is only minimally transparent.
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 short and front-loaded, but it repeats 'The Hill top stories' across two sentences. It could be condensed into a single sentence without losing meaning, though it remains efficient overall.
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 tool, the description states what is returned and the source. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not explain the structure of the returned stories (e.g., list of titles, links, timestamps), leaving a modest but real gap.
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 parameter semantics are moot. The description does not need to explain parameter behavior; the baseline of 4 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('The Hill top stories'), and adds the source ('public RSS feed'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like thehill_headlines or thehill_sections, so it stops short of a 5.
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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over thehill_headlines, thehill_article, or other news tools. It simply states what it returns; there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.