Retrieve the public Collider RSS section inventory to list available sections used by the headlines endpoint.
Get Collider RSS sections. Returns the public Collider 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the data is public and that this is a read-style 'Get' returning an inventory, but it does not describe the response shape, side-effect profile, or any caveats. For a zero-parameter read endpoint this is adequate but not thorough.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. The second sentence earns its place by adding the public/inventory/headlines relationship rather than merely repeating the tool name.
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?
As a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives an agent enough to call it correctly: it identifies the resource and the purpose as the section inventory for headlines. Specifying the output structure more explicitly would make it fully complete, but nothing essential is missing for basic invocation.
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 has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and the mention of 'RSS sections' plus 'inventory' gives sufficient context for the empty schema.
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 names a concrete action and resource ('Get Collider RSS sections') and further specifies that it returns the public section inventory used by the headlines endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like collider_article, collider_author, and collider_headlines by pointing to its specific role as a section-inventory endpoint.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when the agent needs the Collider RSS section inventory, especially as an input or companion to the headlines endpoint. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use it or name alternatives, so it falls just short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.