Get live-verified Denver Post section and topic values accepted by headlines to build valid public archive queries.
Get Denver Post section and topic inventory. Returns the live-verified public editorial section and topic archive values accepted by 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 burden, and it does disclose that values are 'live-verified' and 'public editorial' inventory. However, it gives no return-format, pagination, or auth context. For a zero-parameter read-only inventory tool the burden is modest, so a 3 is fair.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the return content. No filler, though the second sentence is largely a restatement of the first.
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 zero-param, no-output-schema inventory endpoint, the description conveys what is returned (section and topic archive values) sufficiently for an agent to call it. It stops short of describing the return shape, but that gap is minor here.
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 there are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies and the description appropriately does not invent parameter guidance.
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 Denver Post section and topic inventory'), making clear it enumerates available sections/topics. It is distinguishable from denverpost_news, denverpost_headlines, and denverpost_article, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.
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 phrase 'values accepted by headlines' implies the intended use (discover valid section/topic values before filtering headlines), but usage is only implied. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.