List Los Angeles Times section feeds, returning each section's slug, display name, and public RSS URL for use with latimes-headlines.
List Los Angeles Times section feeds. Returns the complete set of section slugs accepted by latimes-headlines, each 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns the complete set of section feeds with display names and public RSS URLs, indicating a read-only catalog operation. Rate limits and ordering are not mentioned, but for a parameterless listing tool these are not material.
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?
A single sentence with a front-loaded verb-resource pair and relevant output detail. Every part earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.
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 parameterless list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is sufficient: it states what is listed, what each entry contains, and how it relates to latimes-headlines. An agent can call it correctly without additional clarification.
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 does not need to explain parameter meanings. It correctly implies that no arguments are required, matching the empty schema.
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 ('List') and resource ('Los Angeles Times section feeds'), and specifies the return contents: section slugs, display names, and RSS feed URLs. This clearly differentiates it from latimes_headlines and latimes_article by focusing on feed discovery rather than article content.
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: to obtain valid section slugs accepted by latimes-headlines. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or exclusions, but the direct reference to latimes-headlines gives an agent enough context to choose this tool over related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.