Retrieve the public IGN section taxonomy used by the headlines endpoint to identify and organize available content categories.
Get IGN sections. Returns the public IGN section taxonomy used 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?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral context on its own. It adds that the taxonomy is 'public' (implying no auth) and that it serves the headlines endpoint, but it doesn't describe the shape of the returned taxonomy, potential pagination, or error behavior. This is adequate for a simple zero-parameter getter but not rich.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence: verb and resource first, then a useful clarifying clause about the headlines endpoint. No filler or redundancy.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it states the resource and purpose. But it never specifies the structure of the returned taxonomy (list, objects, identifiers), which is a notable gap given there's no output schema.
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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description doesn't mislead.
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 ('Get') and resource ('IGN sections'), and clarifies the return value is the public section taxonomy used by the headlines endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ign_headlines or other *_sections tools.
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 explains the taxonomy is 'used by the headlines endpoint,' giving an agent a clear reason to call this tool before constructing headlines requests. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.