Fetch TMZ celebrity news top stories from the public home feed, returning structured headlines for quick entertainment monitoring.
Get TMZ top stories. Returns fresh TMZ celebrity news top stories from the public home 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 provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the source ('public home feed') and the freshness angle ('fresh'), which conveys a low-risk read operation. But it does not describe return shape, story count, pagination, or any operational limits, leaving some gaps for a tool with zero annotation safety signals.
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 short sentences, no filler, and the main action is front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds useful scope details without redundancy.
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 simple, zero-parameter feed fetch, the description covers the key contextual facts: source, content type, freshness, and public availability. It does not describe the returned story fields or count, but no output schema exists and the omission is minor given the straightforward nature of the 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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify here. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters, and the no-parameter 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 clearly identifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('TMZ top stories'), and adds specificity by noting they are 'fresh TMZ celebrity news top stories from the public home feed.' It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like tmz_headlines or tmz_sections, instead relying on the semantics of 'top stories.'
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?
Usage is implied: an agent should call this when the user wants TMZ's current top celebrity news stories from the public feed. However, no explicit guidance is given about when to prefer tmz_headlines, tmz_article, or tmz_sections instead, and there are no stated exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.