Fetch verified public Malay Mail News navigation sections to discover valid categories for headline queries and section-based news retrieval.
Get Malay Mail sections. Returns the verified public Malay Mail News navigation sections accepted by malaymail-headlines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait: the returned sections are 'verified public' and are the exact values accepted by malaymail-headlines, implying a constrained valid-value set. It says nothing about the return shape, ordering, or count, so the disclosure is partial.
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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed immediately by the constraint that matters. Slight redundancy between 'Get Malay Mail sections' and 'Returns ... sections', but there is no padding.
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-only listing tool this is close to adequate, and the description does explain what the values are for. Without an output schema it could still say whether the return is a list of names or slugs (which an agent needs to pass to malaymail-headlines), leaving a small but real gap.
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 zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. There is no parameter behavior the description would need to compensate for.
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 Malay Mail sections') and adds that these are the navigation sections consumed by malaymail-headlines, which distinguishes it from siblings like malaymail_article and malaymail_news. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with malaymail_headlines, but an agent can still tell what this returns.
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 phrase 'accepted by malaymail-headlines' implies this is a lookup step feeding a headlines call, so the workflow context is inferable. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus going straight to malaymail_headlines or malaymail_news, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.