Fetch headlines from one Ars Technica section by supplying its section slug; returns clean JSON from the public RSS feed.
Get Ars Technica section headlines. Returns fresh headlines from one Ars Technica section's public RSS feed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | Ars Technica section slug |
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read from a public RSS feed (implying no side effects) but does not reveal the return format, pagination, number of headlines, rate limits, or error behavior. The statement 'Returns fresh headlines' is too vague for an agent to know what to expect in the response.
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?
The description is two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the action ('Get Ars Technica section headlines') and adds relevant detail about the feed source. 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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It states the purpose and source but omits details about the response structure (e.g., whether it returns a list of headline objects with titles/URLs), count, or ordering. While an agent can likely infer the basic behavior, the lack of specifics leaves room for misinterpretation.
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 schema fully describes the 'section' parameter with an enum and a description ('Ars Technica section slug'). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies since schema coverage is 100%.
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 clearly states the verb (get), the resource (Ars Technica section headlines), and the scope (one section from a public RSS feed). It distinguishes from sibling tools like arstechnica_news (which likely returns news articles) and arstechnica_sections (which lists sections), making it 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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., arstechnica_news for all news, or arstechnica_sections to list sections). There is no 'when not to use' or mention of alternatives, so the agent must infer usage from the purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.