Retrieve all i section slugs with display names and public RSS feed URLs to identify valid inputs for the headlines endpoint.
Get i sections. Returns every i section slug accepted by the headlines endpoint, with its display name and public RSS feed 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool returns data (a read operation) but does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it mention any side effects, auth, or rate limits. Since it's an obviously simple listing tool, the lack of explicit behavioral disclosure is a minor gap but not a contradiction.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose ('Get i sections') and then details the return payload. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundant content.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what an agent needs: it states the exact purpose, the data returned (slugs, display names, RSS URLs), and the relationship to the headlines endpoint. There is no missing information required to call it correctly.
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 schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for tools with no parameters, as there is nothing to document. The description adds no parameter info but none is needed.
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 verb 'Get', the resource 'i sections', and precisely what it returns: every section slug accepted by the headlines endpoint, with display name and RSS feed URL. It distinguishes itself from other section tools by referencing the specific 'i' publication and its headlines endpoint.
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 when to use it: when you need section slugs for the iNews headlines endpoint. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context of being a specific publication's section list is clear enough for an agent to select it over other section tools. It provides no exclusions but does give a clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.