Lists Mirror section slugs, names, and URLs accepted by mirror-headlines so you can choose valid sections.
Get Mirror sections. Lists the Mirror section slugs accepted by mirror-headlines. Each entry has a stable slug, a display name and a section url. Slugs can contain a path, such as news/uk-news or sport/football.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does reasonably well: it reveals the return shape (slug, name, url), notes that slugs are 'stable', and warns that slugs may be path-like (`news/uk-news`). It does not mention any auth, rate limits, or whether the list is filtered/paginated, leaving a modest gap.
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 core purpose, followed by the sibling linkage and then the return/format detail. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and none is redundant.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description rightly covers the return values (slug, name, url) and the slug format including path-style examples. For a zero-parameter reference-list tool this is complete enough to call and use correctly.
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 baseline is 4; there is nothing parameter-wise for the description to clarify. It does not add parameter meaning, but none is required.
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 gives a specific verb (Get/List) and resource (Mirror sections), and explicitly ties the resource to the sibling `mirror-headlines` as the consumer of these slugs. An agent can distinguish this slug-lookup tool from mirror_headlines, mirror_news, and mirror_article without opening any schema.
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?
Stating that these are 'the Mirror section slugs accepted by `mirror-headlines`' conveys the intended workflow (fetch slugs, then feed them to mirror-headlines), which is clear usage context. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not instruction or naming a non-overlapping alternative, so it is clear rather than exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.