Retrieve fresh non-premium headlines from a selected Jerusalem Post section via RSS, filtering out premium snippets.
Get Jerusalem Post section headlines. Returns fresh non-premium stories from one public Jerusalem Post RSS section. Premium feed snippets are omitted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | Jerusalem Post section slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses that only non-premium stories are returned and premium snippets are omitted, which is real behavioral context. It omits return shape, ordering, significance of 'fresh', and behavior for an invalid slug.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then scoping, then content-filtering caveat. Every sentence carries information, though 'fresh' is slightly vague.
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 single-enum-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned at a high level but leaves the shape of the returned stories and the meaning of 'fresh' unspecified. Adequate but not fully self-contained.
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 description coverage is 100% and the enum fully constrains the section values, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the notion that the section maps to a public RSS feed, which is marginal beyond the schema's 'section slug' description.
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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Get Jerusalem Post section headlines') and clarifies the scope is a single public RSS section. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling jerusalempost_news or jerusalempost_sections tools, so an agent has to infer the difference.
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?
Usage is implied — you must supply one section slug and get that section's headlines — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives like jerusalempost_news or jerusalempost_sections. The 'one public section' phrasing only hints at the constraint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.