Retrieve current Malay Mail section headlines by section slug, returning structured headline cards for public News sections.
Get Malay Mail section headlines. Returns current headline cards for one of Malay Mail's public News sections.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | Malay Mail News section slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the result is 'current headline cards,' which implies a read-only list, but says nothing about result count, pagination, ordering, or freshness beyond the vague word 'current.' Significant gaps remain for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 short sentences that are front-loaded with the operation and then the return nature. Slight redundancy between 'section headlines' and 'headline cards for one of ... sections,' but no meaningful waste.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a rough idea of the return shape ('headline cards'). It stops short of describing result volume, pagination, or ordering, which the absence of an output schema leaves unaddressed.
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 single 'section' parameter is fully documented via an enum of 11 slugs plus a description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing beyond the schema (no slug format guidance or examples), making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 (Get) and resource (Malay Mail section headlines), with the scope clarified as 'one of Malay Mail's public News sections.' It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling malaymail_news or malaymail_sections 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?
Usage is only implied: the phrase 'for one of Malay Mail's public News sections' hints that a section slug is required and likely comes from malaymail_sections, but no when-to-use condition or alternative is named. No exclusion against malaymail_news is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.