Fetch the public English-edition Euronews section inventory to identify available sections for headline requests.
Get Euronews sections. Returns the public Euronews English-edition 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?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only ('Get'), scoped to public English-edition content, and returns an inventory—useful context. It does not describe response format or pagination, but for a parameterless list retrieval this is 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 efficient sentences with no wasted words. The core function is front-loaded, followed by a clarifying detail about its relationship to 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, no-output-schema tool, the description is largely complete: it states the resource, the edition, and the endpoint it supports. Minor omissions like explicit output shape are not critical here.
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 zero parameters LM (schema is empty with 100% coverage), so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exists, which is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('Euronews sections'), and adds specificity by identifying the English-edition section inventory and its relationship to the headlines endpoint. This differentiates it from the many sibling `*_sections` tools for other publications.
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?
It provides clear context: this returns the section inventory used by the headlines endpoint, implying it is a companion to euronews_headlines. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the source-specific naming makes the primary use case obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.