Retrieve valid News24 section names for use with the headlines endpoint. Returns public navigation data to filter news by section.
Get News24 sections. Returns the public News24 section navigation accepted by the headlines endpoint.
| 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that the operation is public ('public News24 section navigation') and that the return value is structured for the headlines endpoint, which is useful. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or exact return format, but for a zero-parameter read operation this is acceptable.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded ('Get News24 sections'), and the second sentence adds the only essential context: that the result is public navigation accepted by the headlines endpoint.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned and how it connects to the headlines endpoint. It could be more explicit about the shape of the section navigation (e.g., list of strings vs. objects with IDs), but the integration hint covers the most important usage context.
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, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on the output and integration context rather than parameter details, as there are no parameters to document.
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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('News24 sections'), and clarifies that it returns 'the public News24 section navigation accepted by the headlines endpoint.' This clearly identifies the tool's function, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from, relying instead on the headlines-endpoint link.
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 implies when to use the tool: when you need the section navigation that can be passed to the headlines endpoint. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like news24_headlines, news24_news, or news24_article, nor does it provide any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.