Retrieve article headlines from a chosen live-verified Motley Fool investing-news section to monitor market, tech, crypto, or stock coverage.
Get The Motley Fool section headlines. Returns article headlines from one live-verified public Fool investing-news section.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | The Motley Fool section slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden: it discloses that output is a list of article headlines scoped to a single section and that the source is live-verified public data. It omits return format, pagination, and count limits, which is a real gap for a no-annotation tool, but the read-only nature is self-evident from 'Get/Returns'.
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. There is mild redundancy between 'section headlines' and 'heads article headlines from one ... section,' but nothing wasteful enough to impair scanning.
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 single-enum-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool this is adequate but thin: it never explains how this differs from the neighboring motleyfool_news/sections/article tools, which is the main ambiguity an agent faces. The enum values themselves are covered by the schema.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the sole parameter is a fully enumerated 'section' slug, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces that a single section is selected; it adds no syntax, defaults, or slug guidance beyond what the enum already provides.
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?
Specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('The Motley Fool section headlines') with a clear scope note that it returns headlines from one section. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like motleyfool_news or motleyfool_sections, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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?
No guidance on when to pick this over motleyfool_news, motleyfool_sections, or motleyfool_article. The phrase 'one live-verified public Fool investing-news section' hints the tool is section-scoped but offers no when/when-not criteria or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.