Returns every i section slug accepted by the headlines endpoint, with its display name and public RSS feed URL. Use inews_headlines to get i section headlines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the returned slugs are the exact set 'accepted by the headlines endpoint', which tells the agent this is a validation/enumeration step, and it notes the RSS URL is public.
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, zero waste. The output content is front-loaded and the alternative tool is named second, which is the correct information order for a catalogue-lookup tool.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description still adds the key linkage (slugs accepted by headlines). For a parameterless enumeration tool with both annotations and an output schema, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing in the schema for the description to supplement, and it correctly does not invent parameter detail.
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 and resource ('Returns every i section slug') plus the fields returned (display name, public RSS feed URL). It also names the sibling it complements (inews_headlines), so an agent can distinguish it from the article/author/news siblings without opening any schema.
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 second sentence explicitly routes the agent: 'Use inews_headlines to get i section headlines', implying sections is the lookup step that feeds slugs into the headlines endpoint. It gives clear context but states no exclusion or when-not-to-use condition, so it falls short of a full 5.
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.
