Retrieves MacRumors section list (front-page, guides, how-to, reviews) with slugs, names, and URLs for use with macrumors-headlines.
Get MacRumors sections. Lists the four MacRumors sections accepted by macrumors-headlines: front-page (all stories mixed), guides, how-to and reviews. Each entry has a slug, display name and url. Roundups, the Buyer's Guide and the forums are not sections.
| 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, but this is a zero-parameter read-only enumeration, so the behavioral burden is low. The description carries it well by disclosing the response shape ('Each entry has a slug, display name and url') and by ruling out non-section content, which prevents the agent from assuming roundups or forum slugs are valid.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the concrete values, then the output shape and exclusions. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.
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?
With zero parameters, no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, the exact set of values, the fields per entry, and the relationship to the consuming headlines tool. Nothing material is missing.
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 takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still adds value by naming the three output fields the entries carry (slug, name, url), which compensates for the absence of an output 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 and resource ('Get MacRumors sections') and then enumerates the exact four values returned (front-page, guides, how-to, reviews), so the agent knows the full domain of the response without calling it. Negative scoping ('Roundups, the Buyer's Guide and the forums are not sections') further distinguishes it from adjacent MacRumors tools.
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?
Explicitly ties the tool to its consumer: the listed sections are 'accepted by macrumors-headlines', which tells the agent this is the discovery step feeding headline queries. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use rule (e.g. 'call this before macrumors_headlines to resolve a section slug') and there is a minor naming mismatch between 'macrumors-headlines' and the sibling tool macrumors_headlines.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.