Retrieve fresh headlines from a specified Euronews English section. Provide section slug to get clean JSON results.
Get Euronews section headlines. Returns fresh headlines from one public Euronews English-edition section.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | Euronews section slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context by saying headlines are 'fresh' and come from a 'public' English-edition section, but it does not mention pagination, result limits, response format, or any rate-limiting behavior.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core action appears first, and the second clause adds genuinely useful scoping information about freshness, publicity, and edition.
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 one-parameter read-only headlines tool, the description is largely complete: it states the purpose and return object ('headlines') and the schema enumerates all valid sections. The main gaps are the lack of output count/pagination details and no sibling comparison, but neither is critical for successful invocation.
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 fully describes the single `section` parameter with an enum and a 'Euronews section slug' description. The tool description adds little beyond restating that the section is public and English-edition, so the schema does the heavy lifting and 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get Euronews section headlines.' It also clarifies the exact scope ('one public Euronews English-edition section'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like euronews_sections, euronews_article, and euronews_author.
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 explains what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as euronews_news or euronews_sections. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.