Get top stories from WalesOnline's public home RSS feed. Returns article data and omits photo galleries with no readable body.
Get WalesOnline top stories. Returns fresh WalesOnline top stories from the public home RSS feed. Photo galleries are omitted because they have no readable article body.
| 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 present, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral details beyond a simple 'returns top stories': it specifies the data source (public home RSS feed), the freshness of the content, and the deliberate omission of photo galleries because they lack readable article bodies. This gives an agent a realistic expectation of result content.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and the caveat about photo galleries is one compact sentence. No filler.
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 with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it will get (fresh top stories from the public RSS feed) and what it will not get (photo galleries). It does not detail the returned object structure, but that is a minor gap for a simple feed reader.
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 is empty (0 parameters), so parameter semantics are moot; baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names a concrete resource ('WalesOnline top stories'), clarifying it returns the site's main feed. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like walesonline_headlines or walesonline_article, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to prefer this tool over siblings such as walesonline_headlines, walesonline_news, or walesonline_article, nor any exclusions. The only usage signal is the phrase 'from the public home RSS feed,' which implies it needs no authentication, but that is not an explicit routing guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.