Fetch The Times of India top stories headlines via public RSS feed. Returns structured JSON metadata for direct use in apps.
Get The Times of India top stories. Returns fresh Times of India top-stories headline metadata 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?
The description discloses that data comes from a public RSS feed (implying no authentication required) and that it returns headline metadata rather than full articles, which is useful. It also characterizes the data as 'fresh,' indicating recency. However, with no annotations provided, it does not address rate limits, potential delays, or the exact response shape. No contradiction with annotations exists since none are provided.
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 with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the additional detail about the RSS feed and metadata is compact and directly relevant.
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 with no output schema, the description covers purpose, data source, and output type. It is slightly vague about what 'headline metadata' contains (titles only? links? dates?), but this is a minor gap for such a simple tool.
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 the description does not need to explain any. The input schema is empty and the description confirms no input is required. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 states a specific action ('Get The Times of India top stories') and clarifies the output ('headline metadata from its public RSS feed'). It clearly identifies the resource and verb. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like timesofindia_headlines, which likely returns similar headline data.
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 use this tool versus alternatives such as timesofindia_headlines, timesofindia_article, or timesofindia_sections. The 'fresh' and 'top stories' hints imply a current-events use case, but this is not explicitly stated, and no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.