Retrieve current CBS Sports headlines for a chosen section from a public per-sport RSS feed.
Get CBS Sports section headlines. Returns fresh headlines from one public CBS Sports per-sport RSS feed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | CBS Sports 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns fresh headlines from a public RSS feed, implying a read-only, non-auth operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or does not modify data. Since it's a simple read, this is 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 sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the core action and then specifies the source, making it efficient and easy to scan. No unnecessary words or redundant 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?
Without an output schema, the description would benefit from stating what the returned headlines look like (e.g., titles, links, timestamps) or any limits/pagination. It also doesn't mention whether the feed is limited to recent items or how many headlines are returned. For a one-parameter tool this is a moderate gap, but the core function is clear.
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 itself has 100% coverage with a description 'CBS Sports section slug' and an enum of 21 sections. The tool description adds only that it is per-sport, which aligns with the enum values but doesn't explain the specific slug format or any nuance about choosing a section. While the schema covers the parameter, the description adds little beyond what the schema already implies.
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 it gets CBS Sports section headlines from a per-sport RSS feed, which distinguishes it from related tools like cbssports_news and cbssports_article by focusing on headlines for a specific sport section. It is specific and actionable, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cbssports_news or cbssports_sections. There is no mention of preferred scenarios, exclusions, or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.