Fetch the public Manchester Evening News editorial section inventory used by men-headlines to list available sections for content retrieval.
Get Manchester Evening News sections. Returns the public Manchester Evening News editorial section inventory used by men-headlines.
| 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, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this returns the 'public' editorial section inventory, which implies no auth needed and a read-only operation. However, it doesn't describe the return format, whether sections are ordered, or any pagination/limitations. For a zero-parameter read tool, the public scope is useful but minimal.
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 sentences, no wasted words. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds useful context about the inventory's purpose. 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 zero-parameter, read-only inventory tool, the description is nearly complete. It states what is returned and the public scope. The only minor gap is not describing the shape of the returned section inventory, but with no output schema and no parameters, an agent can likely infer the result is a list of section names/identifiers.
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, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.
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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Manchester Evening News sections'), and clarifies it returns the public editorial section inventory used by men-headlines. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling section tools like nyt_sections or newyorker_sections, but the publication name in the tool name and description makes the resource clear.
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 implies this is the tool to use when you need the Manchester Evening News section inventory, and mentions it's used by men-headlines. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like men_news or men_headlines, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.