Retrieve current headlines from a chosen Business Insider section like business or technology. Provide a section slug to get structured JSON for news tracking.
Get Business Insider section headlines. Returns fresh headlines from one public Business Insider section.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | Business Insider section slug |
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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'fresh headlines' which implies recency, but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what the response format looks like, whether pagination exists, or any rate limits. For a simple fetch tool this is a moderate gap, but without annotations the description should at least state it's a read operation and what the output contains.
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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes the key scoping detail ('one public Business Insider section'). It's concise and every sentence earns its place, though it could add a bit more behavioral context without becoming verbose.
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 single-parameter headlines tool, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource, the parameter, and the scope. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it doesn't describe the return format or any behavioral details like whether it returns article metadata or just headline strings. An agent could call it correctly, but might be uncertain about the output shape.
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%: the 'section' parameter is described as 'Business Insider section slug' with an enum of valid values. The description adds the context that these are 'public' sections and that headlines are 'fresh,' but doesn't add much beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter fully.
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 ('Business Insider section headlines'), and clarifies it returns 'fresh headlines from one public Business Insider section.' It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like businessinsider_news or businessinsider_sections, but the resource and scope are clear enough for an agent to understand what it does.
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 by saying it returns headlines from a section, and the schema requires a 'section' parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like businessinsider_news or businessinsider_sections, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but not explicit about alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.