sectionsList The Guardian's content sections (Politics, World, Sport, Culture, Environment, etc.). Optionally filter by name substring via q. Returns section IDs and titles for use as filters in search().
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| response | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description confirms the tool is read-only and lists sections, adding minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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 purpose and examples. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter. An output schema exists, so detailed return value documentation is unnecessary. The description covers the essentials: listing sections, optional filtering, and the purpose of the output for use in search.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful context for the 'q' parameter, explaining it filters by name substring. This compensates for the lack of schema documentation, though it does not provide full details like case sensitivity or exact matching.
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?
Description states it lists The Guardian's content sections, provides examples, and mentions optional substring filtering. It also specifies that it returns section IDs and titles, indicating the purpose clearly. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'editions' or 'tags', so not 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?
Description explains the optional filtering via 'q' and states the output is for use as filters in search(). This gives some usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like 'editions' for date-specific sections, which would improve guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have overlapping purposes and similar names, especially the Pipeworx query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and the Polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, etc.). The Guardian-specific tools are distinct but are outnumbered by these confusing clusters, making it hard for an agent to reliably select the right tool.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some are snake_case (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx), some are verbs without objects (item, tags, forget, recall), and some are inconsistent in style (compare_entities vs. bet_research). There is no unifying naming convention across the set.
With 36 tools, the server is bloated for its implied purpose ('The Guardian' suggests a focused news outlet). Many tools belong to unrelated domains (Pipeworx data platform, Polymarket prediction markets), making the count feel excessive and unfocused. A news-specific server should have far fewer tools.
The tool set lacks a coherent domain. The Guardian news tools are complete (search, item, sections, etc.), but the massive inclusion of Pipeworx and Polymarket tools creates dead ends and gaps (e.g., no direct tool to list all prediction markets or search patents). The surface feels like a random collection rather than a designed whole.