Fetch headlines from a chosen E! News section by supplying its slug. Returns structured JSON for categories like TV, movies, music, and celebrities.
Get E! News section headlines. Returns fresh headlines from one E! News section feed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | E! News section slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It implicitly discloses a read-only operation ('Get', 'Returns') and the feed-scoped behavior, but doesn't mention limitations, freshness semantics, or error behavior. Adequate for a simple tool but not detailed.
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 crisp sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and no filler or repetition.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source. It states the return type ('fresh headlines') but not the structure, count, or edge cases. For a one-parameter read-only tool this is nearly adequate but still leaves gaps.
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 coverage is 100% with a full enum and description for 'section'. The description adds only that it's 'one E! News section feed', so the schema already does the heavy lifting. Baseline 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?
States a specific action ('Get') and resource ('E! News section headlines') and clarifies that it returns one section feed. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling E! tools like eonline_news or eonline_sections, leaving some ambiguity about which tool to pick.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The description only says what it does, not when to use it over eonline_news, eonline_sections, or other headlines tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.