List all 12 IGN sections accepted by IGN headline tools, with each section's slug, display name, and URL.
Get IGN sections. Lists the 12 IGN sections accepted by ign-headlines: news, reviews, games, movies, tv, tech, nintendo, playstation, xbox, pc, mobile and comics. Each entry has a slug, display name and url.
| 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, and it discloses the return shape (`slug`, display `name`, `url`) and that the set is a fixed list of 12 — enough for an agent to know this is a small, static read. It does not mention pagination or stability explicitly, but for a zero-parameter lookup that is a minor gap.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the enumerated values needed to call the sibling tool, then the return fields. Nothing wasted.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns, and it does. Combined with the sibling linkage, an agent has what it needs; only the absence of any statement about data freshness or pagination keeps it from a 5.
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 takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by documenting the field structure of the returned items rather than leaving the caller to guess.
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 and resource ('Get IGN sections'), enumerates the exact 12 accepted values, and explicitly links them to the sibling tool `ign-headlines`, so an agent can separate this lookup from ign_headlines/ign_news/ign_author without opening a schema.
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 the use case clearly: fetch this to obtain the section slugs that `ign-headlines` accepts. It stops short of stating when NOT to call it (e.g., when you already know the slug), but the routing context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.