Retrieve Mediaite's public category taxonomy to identify valid section values for headlines requests and build category-based news queries.
Get Mediaite sections. Returns the public Mediaite category taxonomy accepted 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the operation is non-mutating ('Returns...'), public, and returns taxonomy values accepted by another endpoint. However, it does not describe the output shape, whether results are sorted, or if any rate limits/caching apply—minor gaps for a zero-parameter read tool.
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 with no wasted words. The first states the action and resource, the second adds the essential purpose. The information is front-loaded and 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?
For a simple zero-param, no-output-schema taxonomy lookup, the description is largely complete: it names the source (Mediaite), the output (sections taxonomy), and its intended consumer (headlines endpoint). A minor gap is that it does not specify the output format (e.g., list of IDs vs. names), but for such a simple tool the description is sufficient.
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 has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds relevant context about what the tool outputs without needing to explain any inputs.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get Mediaite sections') and then clarifies the output: 'the public Mediaite category taxonomy accepted by the headlines endpoint.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mediaite_article, mediaite_headlines, or the many other *_sections tools by tying it specifically to Mediaite's taxonomy and its role feeding headlines.
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 gives clear context that this tool is the source of valid category values for the headlines endpoint, implying the agent should call it before or alongside mediaite_headlines. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state 'use this when you need valid Mediaite categories,' but the relationship to the headlines endpoint provides sufficient usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.