Retrieve fresh headlines from any chosen Economic Times section feed by supplying a section slug, enabling quick news monitoring and topic tracking.
Get The Economic Times section headlines. Returns fresh headlines from one public Economic Times section feed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | Economic Times section slug |
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 burden. It adds useful behavioral context: headlines are 'fresh' and come from a 'public' feed, implying live, unauthenticated access. However, it does not disclose output structure, pagination, or rate limits, which is a moderate gap for a tool with no output schema.
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 terse sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a single clarifying detail about freshness and public access. Every word earns its place.
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 single-parameter, read-only headlines tool, the description covers what it returns (headlines), the source (public ET section feed), and the schema fully specifies the section input. It does not detail the output structure, but for a simple headlines feed this is a minor gap.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%; the section parameter is fully documented with type, required flag, and an exhaustive enum of slugs. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the word 'section', so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get The Economic Times section headlines.' This clearly identifies the tool as returning section-specific headlines from ET. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like economictimes_news or economictimes_sections, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.
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 implies use for fetching headlines for a specific ET section, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as economictimes_news for general news or economictimes_sections for listing available sections, leaving routing decisions to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.