Retrieve Live Science sections to identify public top-level editorial categories used by the headlines endpoint, enabling accurate filtering.
Get Live Science sections. Returns the public Live Science top-level editorial taxonomy used by the headlines endpoint.
| 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?
The description indicates a read-only operation ('Returns') and clarifies the data scope ('public', 'top-level editorial taxonomy'). However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does not disclose potential nuances like pagination, output format, or any required authentication. It is not misleading but could be richer.
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 that is tightly written, front-loads the primary action, and includes a useful secondary detail about the taxonomy's role. No filler or redundant information.
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 read tool, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks an explicit statement of the return shape (e.g., whether sections are strings or objects) and does not mention any limits or error conditions, which would be helpful given no output schema. Still, it captures the core purpose sufficiently.
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)Skip. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameters since there are none. It correctly avoids inventing unnecessary parameter details.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Get Live Science sections' and adds that it returns the 'top-level editorial taxonomy used by the headlines endpoint.' This is specific and unambiguous, though it does not contrast with sibling section tools for other publications.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it returns, without mentioning that it should be used to fetch section names before querying headlines or that other sites have similar tools. Usage context must be inferred from the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.