Retrieve the public CNET topic taxonomy to get valid sections for the headlines endpoint, ensuring accurate content filtering.
Get CNET sections. Returns the public CNET topic taxonomy accepted 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 carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a public taxonomy, indicating a read-only operation, but does not disclose potential rate limits, caching behavior, or response shape. For a simple parameterless GET, 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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, and includes the critical context about the headlines endpoint, earning 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 sufficient to understand its purpose and use. It could slightly improve by describing the output format (e.g., list, hierarchy), but the current level is adequate for its simplicity.
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 schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no parameters are needed, and there is no extra semantic burden.
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 the action ('Get CNET sections') and resource, and further specifies it returns a taxonomy accepted by the headlines endpoint. This differentiates it from siblings like cnet_headlines and cnet_news, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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?
It mentions that the taxonomy is accepted by the headlines endpoint, implying it is a prerequisite for headlines. While it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, the context makes it clear when this tool is needed. It is adequate for a zero-parameter tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.