Retrieve AL.com's three top-level editorial sections from site navigation, ready for use with the headlines endpoint.
Get AL.com editorial sections. Returns the three top-level editorial sections exposed in AL.com's site navigation and accepted by the headlines endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses cardinality ('three top-level sections') and provenance (site navigation), which is real behavioral value for a no-arg getter, but says nothing about response shape, ordering, or any access constraints.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no padding. The phrase 'editorial sections' is mildly repeated across both sentences, a small redundancy rather than a flaw.
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 trivial zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what is returned, how many items, and where the values are valid (the headlines endpoint). Nothing an agent needs in order to call it 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 the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify parameter-wise, and it correctly avoids inventing input arguments.
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 editorial sections) and names the consuming endpoint (headlines), which ties it to its sibling alcom_headlines. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from alcom_news, so it falls 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?
The phrase 'accepted by the headlines endpoint' implies the intended workflow — fetch sections, then use them to query headlines — but the description never states when to use this tool versus alcom_headlines or alcom_news, nor any preconditions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.