List the 24 live-verified Daily Kos public WordPress categories accepted by dailykos-headlines to validate section names before fetching headlines.
List Daily Kos categories. Returns the 24 live-verified public WordPress categories accepted by dailykos-headlines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: the result set is fixed at 24 entries, is live-verified, and consists of public WordPress categories. It does not mention caching/freshness guarantees or the response shape, but for a zero-parameter read it is well above average.
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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the downstream dependency second. Nothing to trim.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must say what comes back, and it does — a 24-item set of live-verified public categories. For a parameterless list tool that is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.
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 takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly reflects that this is an unfiltered enumeration rather than implying any hidden inputs.
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 and resource ("List Daily Kos categories") and immediately ties it to the sibling consumer: categories "accepted by dailykos-headlines." An agent can distinguish this enumeration tool from dailykos_article/news/headlines without opening a schema. Minor naming drift (tool is `sections`, description says `categories`) is the only blemish.
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 reference to dailykos-headlines strongly implies the intended workflow: call this to learn which category values that tool accepts. There is clear context but no explicit when/when-not statement or named alternative for enumerating sections by another means.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.