Fetches Variety top stories from its public RSS feed, returning entertainment headlines as clean JSON for news monitoring and content curation.
Get Variety top stories. Returns fresh Variety 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the source is a public RSS feed and that stories are 'fresh', but it does not describe output shape, story count, caching behavior, or update frequency.
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 very short and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action, and the second adds source and freshness. There is slight redundancy between 'Get' and 'Returns', but no meaningful waste.
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 read-only tool, this is adequate but not complete. Since there is no output schema, the description does not clarify whether the result is a list of article objects, how many stories are returned, or what fields are included. No annotations compensate for these gaps.
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 and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool 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?
States a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('Variety top stories'), and source ('public RSS feed'). It is clear, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling variety_headlines tool, so it falls short of full sibling distinction.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling variety_headlines exists, an agent cannot tell which headlines tool to prefer. The 'public RSS feed' hint implies no authentication is needed, but no exclusions or selection criteria are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.