Retrieve Daily Mail section headlines by specifying a section slug like news, sport, or health. Returns fresh RSS headlines as JSON.
Get Daily Mail section headlines. Returns fresh headlines from one public Daily Mail RSS section.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | Daily Mail RSS section slug |
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. It discloses that the tool returns 'fresh' headlines and that the source is 'public Daily Mail RSS,' which gives some behavioral context. However, it does not mention rate limits, response format, pagination, or that it is a read-only operation beyond the implied 'Returns.'
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler or redundant content. Every word 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 simple tool with one enum parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool does, where the data comes from, and that the headlines are fresh. It does not explain the output structure, but that is not strictly necessary for correct invocation given the simplicity and the absence of an output schema.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%: the only parameter 'section' is fully documented with an enum and a description ('Daily Mail RSS section slug'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 Daily Mail section headlines.' It also clarifies the source as 'one public Daily Mail RSS section.' It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like dailymail_news or dailymail_sections.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention dailymail_article, dailymail_news, or any exclusion criteria. The only implied usage is that it returns headlines, which is the tool's core purpose, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.