Retrieve the full inventory of France 24 English-edition sections, covering regions, topics, and public hubs, to identify valid inputs for headline queries.
Get France 24 sections. Returns the complete public France 24 English-edition section inventory (regions, topics, and other public hubs) accepted by /france24/headlines.
| 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 behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a read-only retrieval by saying 'Returns' and marks the data as 'public', implying no special access is required. It does not discuss caching, rate limits, or response format, but for a simple zero-parameter getter the disclosure is adequate.
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 filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the essential scope and usage context. Every part of the description earns its place.
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 parameterless tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned, the publisher, and the intended downstream use. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact return format (e.g., list of slugs vs. names), but the complexity is low and the description is sufficiently actionable.
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?
There are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description is not required to explain inputs. It adds value by clarifying that the returned section inventory is meant to be consumed by /france24/headlines, which is more useful than restating the empty schema.
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 states the exact verb and resource ('Get France 24 sections') and goes further to define the scope: 'complete public France 24 English-edition section inventory (regions, topics, and other public hubs)'. This clearly distinguishes it from other section tools by publisher and target endpoint.
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 explicitly says the inventory is 'accepted by /france24/headlines', giving an agent a clear reason to call it: to obtain valid section values for that endpoint. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or when not to use it, but for a parameterless retrieval tool the context is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.