Get Tom's Guide top stories from RSS feed. Returns current articles in structured JSON for tech news and reviews.
Get Tom's Guide top stories. Returns fresh Tom's Guide top stories from the 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the source is a public RSS feed and that stories are 'fresh,' implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention limitations, output format, or possible failures, leaving a partial picture.
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 purpose. The second sentence adds the RSS source detail, though 'Tom's Guide top stories' is repeated, creating slight 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 zero-parameter tool, the description is minimally viable: it says what it returns and from where. But with no output schema and no guidance about how this relates to sibling news/headlines tools, it leaves some ambiguity about expected response shape and selection context.
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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add semantically. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.
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 Tom's Guide top stories' and adds the source 'public RSS feed.' It is clear about what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from the similarly named tomsguide_headlines sibling.
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 like tomsguide_headlines, tomsguide_sections, or tomsguide_article. It only states what it does, leaving selection entirely to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.