Fetch live-verified India Today section inventory used by the headlines endpoint to discover valid sections for headline requests.
Get India Today sections. Returns the live-verified India Today section inventory 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool 'Returns' a 'live-verified' inventory, implying a read-only operation, and it ties the output to the headlines endpoint. However, it does not explicitly disclose side-effect safety, output format, or any freshness/caching caveats, which would be needed for full transparency.
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 sentences with no filler: the first names the operation and resource, the second explains the output and its relationship to the headlines endpoint. Every word contributes to understanding.
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, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the resource, states the return value, and explains its downstream use. It could be slightly more specific about the shape of the returned section inventory, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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, so the description has no parameter semantics to explain. With no parameters required, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description's focus on what the endpoint returns 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get India Today sections') and clarifies that it returns the section inventory consumed by the headlines endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling section tools for other publications and from related India Today tools like headlines or articles.
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 phrase 'used by the headlines endpoint' provides clear context for when an agent would call this tool: when it needs the available section list to drive headline queries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but for a zero-parameter read-only lookup the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.