Retrieves the complete Deutsche Welle English-edition section inventory, including regions, topics, and categories, for use with DW headlines endpoints.
Get DW sections. Returns the complete public Deutsche Welle English-edition section inventory (regions, topics, and categories) accepted by /dw/headlines.
| 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 provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns the complete public inventory, indicating a read-only operation and the scope of the result. It doesn't mention ordering, size, or any side effects, but for a zero-parameter tool that's acceptable.
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 sentences with no waste. The first sentence is a clear statement of purpose, and the second adds necessary detail about the output's composition and relationship to another tool. It's appropriately front-loaded.
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 enumeration tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It tells the agent what to expect (a list of sections) and how the data relates to dw_headlines. No critical information is missing.
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 no parameters, so the schema provides no information. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but per the rule for 0 parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameters need clarification.
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 ('Get') and resource ('DW sections'), and explicitly defines what the sections are (regions, topics, categories) and their acceptance by /dw/headlines. This differentiates it from sibling tools like dw_headlines (which retrieves headlines) and dw_article (which fetches an article).
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?
Implies the tool is used to obtain valid section identifiers for /dw/headlines, giving clear context for when to call it. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but for a simple enumeration tool, this is sufficient guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.