Fetch up to 50 of the newest Toronto Star editorial stories, newest first, from the public news sitemap, excluding press releases and sponsored content.
Get Toronto Star top stories. Returns the newest Toronto Star editorial stories (up to 50, newest first) from the public news sitemap. Press-release and sponsored pages are excluded.
| 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the source (public news sitemap), the filtering behavior (excludes press-release and sponsored pages), and the ordering (newest first). It doesn't mention pagination or return format, but for a zero-parameter read tool, this is reasonably transparent.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Get Toronto Star top stories') and then adds essential constraints (source, limit, ordering, exclusions). Every sentence earns its place.
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, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete. It covers what, source, limit, ordering, and exclusions. The only minor gap is not describing the exact structure of the returned stories (e.g., titles, URLs, timestamps), but without an output schema, that's a small omission.
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 there are no parameter semantics to document. The description compensates by explaining what the tool returns and its constraints. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.
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 states the tool's function: 'Get Toronto Star top stories' with specific details about source (public news sitemap), recency (newest first), and limits (up to 50). It also explicitly excludes press-release and sponsored pages, which distinguishes it from generic news tools and sibling tools like torontostar_article and torontostar_headlines.
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 this tool: when you need top/editorial stories from Toronto Star, not individual articles or author-specific content. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'editorial stories' and 'excluded' phrasing provides clear context for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.