Retrieve the public Mirror editorial section inventory to support headline generation. Returns clean JSON of available sections.
Get Mirror sections. Returns the public Mirror editorial section inventory used by mirror-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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the data is 'public' and describes it as an 'editorial section inventory', which is useful, but it omits any mention of authentication needs, rate limits, or response characteristics. For a tool with zero annotations, this is thin but not misleading.
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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded ('Get Mirror sections'), and the second sentence adds meaningful context about scope and intended downstream use.
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 parameterless list tool, the description is reasonably complete: it names the resource, notes it is public, and ties it to mirror-headlines. Still, without annotations or an output schema, it would benefit from saying what the returned section inventory looks like or that no input is required beyond the implicit call itself.
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 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema fully covers an empty parameter set and no additional parameter semantics are needed.
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 Mirror sections') and clarifies it returns the 'public Mirror editorial section inventory'. This is clear and hints at its relationship to mirror-headlines, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from other Mirror content tools like mirror_news or mirror_article.
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 'used by mirror-headlines' implies the tool is the section source for headline queries, which gives some usage context. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over other section tools or Mirror-specific tools, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.