Retrieve the public ABC News Australia section inventory, providing the section list required to query the headlines endpoint.
Get ABC News Australia sections. Returns the public ABC News Australia section inventory used by the headlines endpoint.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden, and it adequately conveys a read-only retrieval via 'Get' and 'Returns'. It adds context by noting the data is public and that it feeds the headlines endpoint; however, it doesn't detail output shape or any list-level behavior such as ordering or pagination.
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 short sentences, the first stating the action and the second adding key context. No filler or repetition of the schema.
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 no-parameter, no-output-schema fetch, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the resource, the publisher, and the relationship to headlines. It could be more explicit about what the 'inventory' contains, such as ids, names, or nesting, which is why it doesn't reach a 5.
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 the schema already communicates everything about inputs. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description adds no necessary 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?
The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get ABC News Australia sections') and clarifies what is returned: the public section inventory used by the headlines endpoint. This differentiates it from sibling tools like abcau_headlines (which would fetch headlines themselves) and from other publishers' *_sections tools.
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?
It gives clear context: this is the public inventory used by the headlines endpoint, so an agent working with ABC News Australia can infer when sections are needed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or specify when not to use it, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.