Fetch The Star Malaysia top stories from its public home page and return them as structured data for news tracking or aggregation.
Get The Star (Malaysia) top stories. Returns the current The Star (Malaysia) top stories from the public home page.
| 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 provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful context by stating the data comes from the 'public home page' and is 'current,' implying a public, read-only source. It does not describe response format, pagination, or potential limits, but for a simple zero-parameter news fetch this is a reasonable but not rich disclosure.
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 with the core action. It is slightly redundant, repeating 'The Star (Malaysia) top stories' twice, but the second sentence adds the 'current' and 'public home page' context, so both sentences contribute value.
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 gives enough to attempt a call: it identifies the source and the general result. However, there is no output schema and no return-format details, and the relationship to thestarmy_headlines is not clarified, so an agent gets an adequate but incomplete picture.
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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description correctly implies that no parameters are needed. Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies and the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.
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 specific verb and resource: 'Get The Star (Malaysia) top stories.' It also clarifies the source as 'the public home page.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings like thestarmy_headlines or thestarmy_news alternatives, 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 implies when to use the tool: when the agent needs current top stories from The Star's public home page. It does not mention exclusions or explicitly compare with sibling tools such as thestarmy_headlines or thestarmy_sections, leaving the usage guidance mostly implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.