Retrieve the Newsmax RSS section inventory used by the headlines endpoint. Identify available public sections for building news feeds.
Get Newsmax RSS sections. Returns the public Newsmax RSS section inventory used 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the data is public and that it returns an inventory used by headlines, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not describe the response structure, pagination, or any limitations, leaving some behavioral traits undisclosed.
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 concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded ('Get Newsmax RSS sections'), and the second sentence adds relevant context about the return value and its relationship to the headlines endpoint. 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?
Given the tool accepts no parameters and has no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining the return value. It states that the inventory is returned, but does not specify the shape (e.g., array of strings, objects with IDs and URLs). For a simple inventory tool this is a moderate gap, but it is not severely incomplete.
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 schema is fully covered and no parameter explanation is needed. Per the rubric, 0 parameters sets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter context, but none is required.
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 a clear resource ('Newsmax RSS sections'), and further clarifies it returns the public section inventory used by the headlines endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like newsmax_headlines or newsmax_news without needing to open schemas.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions it is used by the headlines endpoint, which hints at a supporting role, but there is no 'use this when' statement or any comparison with the many other *_sections siblings. The usage context is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.