Fetch live-verified CBS Sports per-sport RSS feed sections to identify available sports feeds for headlines and sports data integrations.
Get CBS Sports sections. Returns the live-verified public CBS Sports per-sport RSS feed inventory used by cbssports-headlines.
| 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 burden. It discloses that the data is 'live-verified' and 'public', which adds useful context about freshness and accessibility. However, it doesn't describe the return format, pagination, or any other behavioral traits beyond what's stated.
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 no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Get CBS Sports sections') and then adds the key contextual detail about the live-verified feed inventory. Every sentence 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, no-output-schema tool, the description is reasonably complete. It tells the agent what it returns and its relationship to cbssports-headlines. It could mention whether the output is a list of section names or full feed URLs, but the 'RSS feed inventory' phrasing covers the essentials.
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 has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and there's nothing to document. The description adds context about what the returned inventory contains (per-sport RSS feeds), which is meaningful for a no-parameter tool. Baseline 4 for zero params is appropriate.
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 and resource: 'Get CBS Sports sections' and clarifies it returns the live-verified public CBS Sports per-sport RSS feed inventory used by cbssports-headlines. This is clear about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cbssports_news or cbssports_headlines, which are distinct enough by name.
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 context by mentioning it's the feed inventory used by cbssports-headlines, which hints at when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cbssports_news or cbssports_headlines, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.