Fetch current GQ section headlines with story details—standfirst, byline, publish date, and image—by section for quick editorial monitoring.
Get GQ section headlines. Returns the current story cards from one GQ section page: headline, standfirst, byline, publish date, and image.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | GQ section slug |
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 states the tool returns current story cards and lists the fields, which gives a basic understanding of the output. However, it doesn't disclose any potential rate limits, auth requirements, or whether the results are paginated or limited, which would be useful behavioral context.
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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Get GQ section headlines') and then details the return fields. It's concise with no unnecessary fluff, and it conveys the essential information efficiently.
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?
With one parameter, a simple return structure, and no output schema, the description is adequate for basic usage. However, it lacks details on how the list is ordered (e.g., by date, prominence) or any limitations (e.g., number of stories returned). These are not critical, but would enhance completeness.
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 schema has 100% coverage – the parameter 'section' is described as 'GQ section slug' and includes an enum of valid values. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only implying the section parameter is used to select a section page. Since the schema already documents the parameter thoroughly, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 gets GQ section headlines and lists the specific fields returned (headline, standfirst, byline, publish date, image). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying 'GQ section headlines' and the section parameter, which differentiates it from other headlines tools for different publications.
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 by indicating it returns current story cards from a section page, which suggests it should be used when the agent needs headlines from a specific GQ section. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but given the many sibling tools for different publications, the GQ prefix in the name provides clear context for when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.