Fetch fresh headlines from any i section by providing its slug. Returns clean JSON for quick integration.
Get i section headlines. Returns fresh headlines from one public i section feed. The section must be a slug returned by the sections endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | i section slug |
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 burden and does add useful traits: the feed is 'public', results are 'fresh', and it is a single feed. However, it does not disclose response structure, pagination, error behavior, or ordering, leaving some ambiguity about what 'headlines' actually contains.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The core verb and resource are front-loaded, and the critical constraint about the sections endpoint appears immediately after.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (fresh headlines), that it is a single public feed, and how to obtain a valid section slug. It could mention the return shape, but the low complexity means the description is nearly complete for selecting and calling the tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'section' parameter and its enum values. The description adds valuable semantic context by explaining that valid slugs are those 'returned by the sections endpoint', which helps an agent source the parameter correctly rather than relying solely on the static enum.
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'), resource ('i section headlines'), and scope ('one public i section feed'). The term 'headlines' distinguishes it from sibling tools like inews_article and inews_news, and the dependency on the sections endpoint is clearly noted.
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 gives clear context: use this to fetch fresh headlines for a specific i section, and the section slug must come from the sections endpoint. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., when to prefer inews_news), so it stops 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.