Fetch current FOX Sports headlines for a specific section from the public editorial RSS feed to retrieve structured headline data.
Get FOX Sports section headlines. Returns current headlines from one public FOX Sports editorial RSS feed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | FOX Sports section slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the source is a single public FOX Sports editorial RSS feed and that headlines are current, which is useful context. But it omits return format, result count, pagination, and whether any authentication or rate limits apply.
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, front-loaded with the purpose. No wasted words; the second sentence adds source context without bloat.
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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least explain the return shape or its relationship to siblings. It omits both, leaving an agent to guess what a 'headline' object contains and when to prefer this over foxsports_news.
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%, with a clear enum and a 'FOX Sports section slug' description. The tool description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('FOX Sports section headlines'), and clarifies the source as a public editorial RSS feed. However, it does not name or distinguish from sibling tools like foxsports_news or foxsports_sections, leaving selection to inference.
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, alternatives, or exclusions are provided. The description only says what it returns, not when to choose it over foxsports_news or foxsports_sections.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.