Fetch headlines for a specific News18 section by providing the RSS section slug (e.g., india, world, cricket).
Get News18 section headlines. Returns fresh headlines from one public News18 RSS section.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | News18 RSS section slug |
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 burden. It discloses that headlines are 'fresh' and come from a 'public' RSS section, implying no authentication is needed. However, it does not describe error behavior for invalid sections, rate limits, or the structure of the returned data. It provides minimal but acceptable transparency for a simple fetch operation.
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 tight sentences with zero filler. The core action and the key qualifier (public RSS) are front-loaded. Every word 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate: it states what is returned (headlines) and that they are fresh from a public section. It does not detail the exact return format, but for a headline fetch this is likely standard and not a critical omission given the simplicity. It is complete enough for an agent to call it 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, with the parameter fully documented via an enum and a description ('News18 RSS section slug'). The description adds only the phrase 'one public News18 RSS section,' which slightly reinforces the expected input but adds no meaningful new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clear action ('Get') and resource ('News18 section headlines'), and specifies it comes from a public RSS section, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like news18_sections (which likely lists sections) and news18_article (full articles). It could be more explicit about its scoped purpose relative to other headline tools, hence not a 5.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that news18_sections should be used to discover available sections first, nor does it indicate that this tool is only for headlines and not full articles. An agent must infer usage from context, which is lacking.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.