Lists the 21 Newsweek section slugs accepted by headline queries, including news, world, us, fact-check, and pets, with each slug, name, and page URL.
Get Newsweek sections. Lists the 21 Newsweek section slugs accepted by newsweek-headlines, such as news, world, us, fact-check and pets. Each entry has its slug, display name and section 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, the description carries the behavioral burden and does quite well: it discloses the fixed size (21 entries) and the exact shape of each entry (`slug`, display `name`, page `url`). It leaves the read-only nature implicit via 'Get/Lists' rather than stating it, and says nothing about caching or freshness, so it is not exhaustive.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the useful consumer-tool linkage, then the return shape. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (slug, name, url) and the item count, and by linking to the tool that consumes these slugs. Nothing an agent needs to call this 0-param tool correctly is missing.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. The description correctly refrains from inventing parameters and instead describes the output fields.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get'/'Lists') and resource (Newsweek section slugs), and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming `newsweek-headlines` as the consumer of these slugs. The concrete examples (`news`, `world`, `us`) plus the exact count (21) make the purpose unmistakable.
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?
It clearly establishes the context of use by noting the slugs are 'accepted by `newsweek-headlines`', which tells the agent this is a lookup/enumeration step that feeds a sibling tool. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming alternative section sources, so it is not a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.