Get a live-verified inventory of Jerusalem Post RSS sections accepted by the headlines tool, enabling valid section feed queries.
Get Jerusalem Post section inventory. Returns the live-verified public RSS sections accepted by jerusalempost-headlines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 behavioral burden. It adds useful context that the sections are 'live-verified' and 'public RSS,' but does not disclose operational traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, freshness guarantees, or return format.
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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return content. Every clause earns its place by specifying what is returned and the validation source.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description sufficiently explains the returned inventory and its relationship to jerusalempost-headlines. It could specify the return structure (e.g., names vs URLs), but the tool's low complexity makes this a minor gap.
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 per the rubric zero parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, and the empty schema is consistent.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get Jerusalem Post section inventory.' It clearly identifies the resource and further narrows it to 'live-verified public RSS sections accepted by jerusalempost-headlines,' distinguishing it from general news retrieval siblings.
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 ties the tool to jerusalempost_headlines by saying the sections are 'accepted by jerusalempost-headlines,' giving clear contextual use. However, it does not explicitly say when to call this versus other section or feed tools, nor does it state any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.