List Live Science public editorial or RSS sections accepted by livescience_headlines. Use livescience_headlines for section cards, livescience_news for the general feed, or livescience_article for one story.
| 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 that these are 'public' sections (implying no auth) and that they are consumed by livescience_headlines, but says nothing about list size, ordering, or caching. With annotations carrying the core behavior, a 3 is appropriate.
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 with essentially no waste, and the purpose is front-loaded before the alternatives. The first sentence is dense, packing 'public', 'editorial or RSS', and the headlines linkage into one clause, which slightly slows parsing.
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 values need not be described, and a zero-parameter list tool needs little else. The description supplies the one thing the schema cannot: how this list relates to the headlines sibling that consumes it.
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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly describes a parameterless enumeration and adds the meaningful constraint that the returned sections are the ones 'accepted by livescience_headlines', but there is no argument surface to clarify further.
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 ('List') plus a precisely scoped resource ('Live Science public editorial or RSS sections'), and explicitly ties it to the sibling it feeds (livescience_headlines). An agent can distinguish this from livescience_news and livescience_article 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?
Names the three alternative tools and the exact condition that selects each: headlines for section cards, news for the general feed, article for one story. This is explicit when-to-use routing with no inference required.
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.
