Retrieve AP News editorial sections and hub inventory to locate the feeds needed for headline searches.
Get AP News sections. Returns the AP News editorial hub inventory used by apnews-headlines.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns an 'editorial hub inventory' and its relationship to apnews-headlines, which is useful. However, it doesn't describe the structure of the returned data, whether it's a list, or any other behavioral details like pagination or freshness. For a zero-parameter read-only tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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, no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a useful contextual link to apnews-headlines. Every word earns its place.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what it returns and how it relates to another tool. The only minor gap is not describing the shape of the returned inventory, but with no parameters and no output schema, the agent can still invoke it correctly.
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, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description correctly implies no input is needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('AP News sections'), and adds context that it returns the editorial hub inventory used by apnews-headlines. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling section tools like nyt_sections or newyorker_sections, but the AP News branding makes the resource unambiguous.
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 description implies usage context by noting the returned inventory is used by apnews-headlines, which hints at when an agent might need it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like apnews_news or apnews_headlines, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.