Retrieve FOX Sports news sections and their live-verified public editorial RSS feed inventory for use by foxsports-headlines.
Get FOX Sports news sections. Returns the live-verified public editorial RSS feed inventory used by foxsports-headlines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden. It discloses provenance and freshness ('live-verified public editorial RSS feed inventory'), which is useful behavioral context beyond the name, but it never states that this is a read-only, side-effect-free listing with no parameters.
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 short sentences, zero waste, with the resource statement front-loaded and the provenance detail following. Nothing is repeated from the name.
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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the resource and characterizes the payload as an RSS feed inventory. It could have said a bit more about the shape of a returned section (label plus feed URL), but the gap is minor.
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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no arguments whose semantics the description could or should clarify.
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+resource ('Get FOX Sports news sections') and adds a distinguishing detail: the result is the editorial RSS feed inventory consumed by foxsports-headlines. It differentiates from foxsports_headlines/news in the sibling list by implying this is the section taxonomy rather than the articles themselves, though that distinction is implied rather than stated.
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 mention of foxsports-headlines hints at a discover-then-fetch workflow, which implies when this tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on what to do with the returned sections, and no exclusions versus foxsports_news or foxsports_article.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.