Retrieve current top stories from Tom's Guide with titles, URLs, summaries, authors, publication times, and images.
Get Tom's Guide top stories. Returns the current top stories from Tom's Guide. It takes no parameters. Each item has its title, URL and, where available, a summary, author, publication time, image URL and type. Use the headlines endpoint to read one section.
| 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 full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the shape of each returned item (title, URL, optional summary, author, publication time, image URL, type), which is real value absent an output schema. It says nothing about result count, ordering, refresh cadence, or rate limits.
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?
Front-loaded and appropriately short, but the first two sentences are redundant — 'Get Tom's Guide top stories' is immediately restated as 'Returns the current top stories from Tom's Guide'. The routing note is well placed at the end.
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 parameterless read-only feed with no output schema, the description supplies the needed return-field detail and points to the sibling that handles section-scoped reading. Missing only secondary traits like item count or freshness, which prevents a 5.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4, and the description explicitly confirms 'It takes no parameters', removing any doubt about whether paging or filtering arguments exist.
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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (Tom's Guide top stories) and clarifies it is the site-wide feed rather than a section feed. It partially distinguishes itself from tomsguide_headlines by noting that the headlines endpoint is for a single section, though the boundary between 'top stories' and 'headlines' remains slightly fuzzy.
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?
It names the alternative endpoint (headlines) and the condition that selects it ('to read one section'), which is useful routing. However, it never states when to prefer this top-stories feed over tomsguide_sections or tomsguide_article, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.