Retrieve GB News sections and topic taxonomy to find accepted categories for the headlines endpoint.
Get GB News sections. Returns the public GB News section and topic taxonomy accepted 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states this is a read-only retrieval of public taxonomy, but it does not mention the output shape, whether the response is a flat list or nested structure, or any potential failure behavior. This is acceptable for a simple no-param tool but leaves room for more detail.
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 concise sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the integration context in the second sentence. No filler or repetition of schema information.
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 tool with no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and the relationship to the headlines endpoint. It does not detail the exact taxonomy format or field names, but this is a minor gap for such a simple tool.
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 input schema has zero parameters and the description introduces no parameter vocabulary, which is appropriate. Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline 4 applies; nothing is missing in this dimension.
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+resource ('Get GB News sections') and adds the key detail that it returns the section and topic taxonomy used by the headlines endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from the many other *_sections tools and from gbnews_headlines.
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 implies usage context by noting the taxonomy is 'accepted by the headlines endpoint,' so an agent knows this tool supplies the vocabulary needed by that sibling. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but for a zero-parameter taxonomy fetcher this is mostly sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.