List Daily Record sections with stable slugs, display names, and URLs to identify valid section inputs for Daily Record headlines requests.
Get Daily Record sections. Lists the Daily Record sections accepted by dailyrecord-headlines, such as news, scotland, uk-world-news, football and in-your-area. Each entry has a stable slug, a display name and the section url. Takes no parameters.
| 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 carries the full behavioral burden and does well for a trivial read: it declares 'Takes no parameters' and describes the returned entry shape (stable `slug`, display `name`, section `url`). It could add whether the list is static/complete, but for a read-only discovery endpoint the disclosure is solid.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the relationship to `dailyrecord-headlines`, then return fields and the no-parameter fact. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value information, and it does by naming the `slug`, `name`, and `url` fields. With no parameters and a simple list contract, the definition is complete 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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4, and the description correctly confirms 'Takes no parameters,' matching the empty schema. No further parameter semantics are needed.
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 Record sections. Lists the Daily Record sections accepted by `dailyrecord-headlines`'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling it feeds. The examples of accepted slugs make it unambiguous which tool enumerates sections vs. which one consumes them.
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?
It ties itself to `dailyrecord-headlines` as the consumer of these values, which makes the intended use (discover valid section identifiers before calling headlines) clear. It stops short of an explicit 'use this before X' directive or naming an alternative, so no exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.