List the 12 Daily Mail RSS sections with slugs, names, and feed URLs so you can choose a valid category for headline requests.
Get Daily Mail RSS sections. Lists the 12 Daily Mail sections accepted by dailymail-headlines: home, news, sport, tvshowbiz, health, femail, travel, sciencetech, money, debate, us and australia. Each entry has the slug, display name and 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format ('Each entry has the `slug`, display `name` and feed `url`') and enumerates the fixed set of 12 sections, which is useful behavioral context. It does not mention read-only status, rate limits, or authentication, but for a simple RSS section listing the covered behavior is adequate.
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 front-loaded with purpose and then immediately gives the section list and return fields. Every sentence contributes useful information—purpose, valid section values, and output shape—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 simple zero-parameter sections list with no output schema, the description is complete: it says what the tool returns, what sections exist, and how those sections relate to dailymail-headlines. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and use its output.
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 the baseline score is 4. The description appropriately describes no inputs and instead focuses on the fixed sections returned, adding meaning without contradicting 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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Get Daily Mail RSS sections.' It also explicitly links the tool to its sibling dailymail-headlines by noting the sections are 'accepted by `dailymail-headlines`', which lets an agent distinguish it from the article/headlines tools. The listed section slugs make the scope concrete.
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 gives clear context: the tool lists sections accepted by dailymail-headlines, so an agent can infer it should be called to discover valid section values before using the headlines tool. It does not spell out explicit when-not or alternative-tool conditions, but the implied workflow is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.