Discover NDTV section slugs, display names, and page URLs to target headlines per section.
Get NDTV sections. Returns every NDTV section slug accepted by the headlines endpoint, with its display name and page URL.
| 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 present, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the tool's observable output: a collection of section slugs plus display names and page URLs. It does not mention error behavior, ordering, or rate limits, but for a zero-parameter read-only enumeration this is sufficient detail.
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 tool's action and then detailed with the exact return contents. No filler or redundant clauses; every sentence contributes.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it names the source, the output fields, and the downstream use of those values. An agent has no inputs to resolve and can predict the response shape from the description alone.
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 the input schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Per the 0-param baseline, this is fully adequate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('NDTV sections') and goes beyond a label by stating the exact return: every section slug accepted by the headlines endpoint, with display name and page URL. This distinguishes it from sibling news/content tools such as ndtv_headlines and ndtv_article, and from other publications' section tools via the NDTV qualifier.
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: this tool is for enumerating valid NDTV section slugs to be used with the headlines endpoint. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the relationship to the headlines endpoint makes the primary use case unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.