Fetch E! News section inventory to identify available sections for headline queries.
Get E! News sections. Returns the E! News section inventory used by the headlines endpoint.
| 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 burden. It discloses that the tool returns an inventory and implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and 'Returns'. However, it does not describe the return format, pagination, or any potential limitations, which is a modest gap for a simple tool.
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 wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds useful relational context about the headlines endpoint.
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-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned and how it relates to headlines. It could be more specific about the structure of the section inventory, but that is not required to invoke the tool 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 schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('E! News sections'), and clarifies that it returns the section inventory used by the headlines endpoint. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like eonline_headlines and other *_sections tools.
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 'used by the headlines endpoint' provides clear context about the tool's role as a supporting endpoint for fetching section inventory. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for a zero-parameter utility.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.