Fetch current AL.com section headlines for news, sports, or life. Use it to quickly monitor publisher teasers without scraping full articles.
Get AL.com section headlines. Returns current headlines from one of AL.com's section feeds. Summaries are brief publisher teasers, not full article text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | AL.com editorial section |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return character ('Summaries are brief publisher teasers, not full article text'), which preempts an agent expecting full articles, but says nothing about result count, freshness guarantees, 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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and the content caveat lands last where it belongs. Nothing is padded, though the middle sentence partially restates the first.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral context. It covers what the tool does and what the summaries are, but omits return volume/format and any indication of how current or how many headlines come back, leaving real gaps for an agent building expectations.
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 100% and the single section parameter is a closed enum with values news/sports/life, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no additional detail about the parameter, which matches the baseline-3 expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Get AL.com section headlines') and clarifies scope with 'from one of AL.com's section feeds', which distinguishes it from a generic news fetch. It does not explicitly name its sibling alcom_sections or alcom_news, so an agent must infer the boundary, keeping it short of 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?
Usage is implied by the section parameter and the scoping sentence, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of the alternative (alcom_sections to discover section names, alcom_news for a broader feed). Adequate for a simple one-param feed tool but leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.