Fetch fresh headlines from a specified Liverpool Echo section. Skips photo galleries to return only readable article headlines.
Get Liverpool Echo section headlines. Returns fresh headlines from one public Liverpool Echo section. Photo galleries are omitted because they have no readable article body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | Liverpool Echo section slug |
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 a notable behavioral detail: photo galleries are omitted because they lack readable article bodies. However, it does not describe the return format, freshness guarantees, pagination, or any error behaviors. The mention of omitting galleries adds some value, but the overall transparency is incomplete for a tool with no output schema.
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 three short sentences, each with a distinct purpose: stating the action, describing the output, and noting an exception. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), so the description should at least hint at the return format. It says 'returns fresh headlines' but does not specify whether this is a list of strings, objects with URLs/dates, etc. Without an output schema, this ambiguity could hinder correct invocation. Given the low complexity, a 3 is appropriate; more detail would make it fully complete.
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% and the parameter 'section' has an enum and a description ('Liverpool Echo section slug'). The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides; it only repeats the 'public section' aspect. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not exceed it.
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 'Liverpool Echo section headlines', and specifies it returns fresh headlines from a single section. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like liverpoolecho_article (full articles) and liverpoolecho_sections (section lists). The purpose is immediately clear.
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 this tool (to fetch headlines) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as liverpoolecho_news or liverpoolecho_sections. There is no 'use X instead' guidance or exclusion of when not to use it, so the agent must infer the appropriate context from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.