Retrieve the public CBR RSS section inventory used by the headlines endpoint. Use it to discover available news sections for feeds.
Get CBR RSS sections. Returns the public CBR RSS 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?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'public' inventory, implying no authentication is needed and it is a read-only operation. However, it does not mention any other behavioral traits such as response format, pagination, or potential side effects. Minimal but not misleading.
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 short sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded ('Get CBR RSS sections'), and the second sentence adds essential context about its relationship to the headlines endpoint. Ideal conciseness for a simple tool.
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?
Given the tool is simple (zero params, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. It explains what the tool returns and hints at its usage via the headlines endpoint. However, it does not describe the format of the returned sections (e.g., array of names/IDs) or how they are to be used, which could be helpful for an agent.
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 is empty (0 parameters), so there is nothing to explain. The description implicitly confirms no inputs are needed. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since no parameter semantics are required.
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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('CBR RSS sections'), and explicitly ties it to the headlines endpoint, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cbr_article, cbr_author, and cbr_headlines. It also differentiates it from other publications' section tools (e.g., apnews_sections) by naming 'CBR'.
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 notes the tool is 'used by the headlines endpoint', which implies it may be a prerequisite for cbr_headlines, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when you need section names to pass to headlines). No exclusions or alternative references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.