Retrieve the public Daily Record editorial section inventory. Use this to access structured section listings for news data needs.
Get Daily Record sections. Returns the public Daily Record editorial section inventory.
| 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, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('Returns') and marks the data as 'public,' but gives no detail on response structure, pagination, or any potential quirks. The description is minimal and does not enrich beyond the obvious.
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 with no fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds a clarifying clause. Every word contributes, and it is appropriately sized for a parameterless getter.
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?
Given the simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate but leaves the exact nature of the return unspecified—'section inventory' could mean a list of names, objects, or more. Without an output schema, the description should offer a bit more detail on the returned structure, though the tool is straightforward.
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 there is nothing for the description to explain. The schema is empty and coverage is 100%, making parameter documentation unnecessary. The description appropriately omits parameter details.
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') and the resource ('Daily Record sections'), and adds that it returns the 'public Daily Record editorial section inventory,' which specifies the scope. It is distinct from sibling tools by naming the publication, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other sections tools (e.g., nzherald_sections, nyt_sections). No conditions, exclusions, or context are provided, leaving the agent to infer based solely on the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.