Retrieve the Business Standard section inventory to power headlines. Use this tool to get the list of available sections, enabling targeted content queries.
Get Business Standard sections. Returns the public Business Standard section inventory used by the headlines endpoint.
| 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as returning a 'public ... section inventory,' which implies a safe read operation, but it does not disclose response format, pagination, or any potential edge cases. For a zero-parameter read-only tool, this is minimally adequate, but the description adds little beyond restating the function.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action 'Get Business Standard sections.' The second sentence provides a useful relationship to the headlines endpoint without any redundant phrasing. 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 tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned and hints at its purpose. The only gap is that it does not describe the shape of the returned inventory (e.g., list of section names/IDs), but given the tool's simplicity and the pointer to the headlines endpoint, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call 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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for parameter details since there are none. The mention of 'section inventory' and its use by the headlines endpoint indirectly communicates the output's role but does not add parameter-specific semantics, which is fine given the empty schema.
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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Get Business Standard sections.' It further clarifies the exact purpose by calling it 'the public Business Standard section inventory used by the headlines endpoint,' which differentiates it from sibling publication section tools and from the businessstandard_headlines tool. An agent can immediately understand what this tool returns.
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 when to use this tool by noting it is 'used by the headlines endpoint,' suggesting it provides section identifiers for subsequent headlines calls. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this before calling businessstandard_headlines' or mention any alternatives or exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so a 3 is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.