Lists the five sections accepted by cna-headlines: asia, business, singapore, sport, and world. Each includes slug, name, and feed URL.
Get CNA sections. Lists the five CNA sections accepted by cna-headlines: asia, business, singapore, sport and world. Each has a slug, a display name and the feed 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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the return shape ('slug', display 'name', feed 'url') and that the set is fixed at five. It says nothing about caching/static-ness or auth, but for a trivial static lookup this is solid disclosure.
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 with the purpose front-loaded, then the value list, then the return shape. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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 no-param tool with no output schema, the description supplies exactly what is missing: the enumerated values and the fields of each returned item. Nothing an agent needs to call or consume it is absent.
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?
Zero parameters means there is nothing for the description to clarify, and the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description does not need to add syntax detail.
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+resource ('Get CNA sections') and then enumerates the exact five values returned, so the agent knows precisely what it gets. It also names the consuming sibling `cna-headlines`, distinguishing it from the article/author/news siblings.
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?
Usage is strongly implied: the sections are described as those 'accepted by `cna-headlines`', so an agent understands this is the enum-discovery call that feeds the headlines tool. It stops short of an explicit 'use this before calling cna-headlines' directive or any exclusion statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.