List Business Insider editorial sections with slugs, names, and URLs to find valid categories for headline retrieval.
Get Business Insider sections. Lists the Business Insider editorial sections accepted by businessinsider-headlines, such as business, markets and technology. Each entry has a stable slug, a display name and the section's page url.
| 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 behavioral burden, and it does disclose the shape of returned entries (stable `slug`, display `name`, page `url`). However, it says nothing about pagination, ordering, completeness of the section list, or whether the list is static, which matters for a lookup/reference tool with no annotation coverage.
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 what the tool is, then the consumer relationship, then the return shape. No filler and every sentence adds a distinct piece of information.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description usefully compensates by enumerating the returned fields (slug, name, url) and giving examples. For a parameterless listing tool with no annotations, this is nearly complete; only the absence of any note about the list's scope or stability keeps it from a 5.
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 is 4. The description adds useful value by naming concrete accepted values (`business`, `markets`, `technology`) and their identifying keys (`slug`), which an agent needs to correlate this tool's output with sibling inputs.
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/Lists the Business Insider editorial sections') and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the consumer, `businessinsider-headlines`. An agent can tell it apart from businessinsider_headlines, businessinsider_news and businessinsider_article without opening any schema.
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?
It explicitly ties the output to a sibling ('sections accepted by `businessinsider-headlines`'), which tells the agent to call this first to obtain valid section values. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement or naming other alternatives, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.