Fetch headlines from a selected Newsmax RSS section, such as politics, health, or finance, for use in news feeds, briefings, or monitoring.
Get Newsmax section headlines. Returns fresh headlines from one public Newsmax RSS section.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | Newsmax RSS section slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'fresh headlines' from 'one public Newsmax RSS section', which implies a read-only, public data source. However, it doesn't describe output format, pagination, freshness guarantees, or failure behavior. For a simple read tool, the disclosed scope is adequate but not rich.
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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the action and resource; the second clarifies the source and freshness. 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, read-only headline fetcher with a complete enum in the schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that the output is a list of headlines and maybe that no authentication is needed, but the 'public RSS' phrasing already implies that. The lack of an output schema is not a major gap for this simple tool.
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%: the only parameter, 'section', is documented as a 'Newsmax RSS section slug' with a full enum of valid values. The description adds the context that the section is from a public RSS feed, but the schema already carries the semantic weight. 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 specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('Newsmax section headlines'), and a scope ('one public Newsmax RSS section'). It clearly identifies what the tool returns. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling headline tools like foxnews_headlines or nyt_headlines, but the Newsmax brand and RSS section detail make the resource unambiguous.
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 usage: call it when you need fresh headlines from a Newsmax RSS section. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like newsmax_news or newsmax_sections, nor does it mention any exclusions. The context is clear enough for a simple fetch tool, but there is no explicit routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.