Retrieve the public GMA News Online section feeds accepted by the headlines endpoint to select valid sections for headline queries.
Get GMA News sections. Returns the public GMA News Online section feeds 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?
There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns section feeds and that they are public and accepted by the headlines endpoint. It doesn't mention any rate limits, authentication, or side effects, but for a simple read operation that's acceptable. It's not misleading and gives basic transparency, but lacks depth.
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?
The description is two short sentences, with no filler. It front-loads the main action ('Get GMA News sections') and then adds a relevant detail about the returned feeds. Every word 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 no-parameter tool, this description is fairly complete. It states what it returns and how it relates to the headlines endpoint. It doesn't specify the exact structure or format of the output, but without an output schema, it could have been more descriptive. Still, it covers the essential information an agent needs to understand its purpose and basic usage.
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, so the schema provides no parameter information. Per the calibration, with no parameters, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none. It appropriately focuses on what it returns.
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 tool retrieves GMA News sections, using a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'sections'. It also notes they are the section feeds accepted by the headlines endpoint, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like gmanews_headlines or gmanews_article. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast it with other section tools, so it's not a 5.
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: it provides the list of section feeds that can be used with the headlines endpoint, so an agent might infer to call this before headlines. But it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. This is implied, not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.