Retrieve The New Yorker section headlines by slug; use section slugs from the sections endpoint to get current stories from one public feed.
Get The New Yorker section headlines. Returns fresh headlines from one public The New Yorker section feed. Section must be one of the slugs returned by the sections endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | The New Yorker 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 behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose that the tool reads a public feed and returns fresh headlines, implying a read-only, low-auth operation. However, it does not mention return structure, pagination, limits, or behavior for invalid sections.
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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second adds the key constraint about valid section slugs. It is well front-loaded and easy to parse.
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?
This is a low-complexity tool with one required parameter and no output schema. The description states what is returned (headlines) and where valid parameter values come from, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It does not describe the exact response format, but that is a minor gap for a simple headlines fetcher.
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 schema already fully describes the section parameter and its enum values, but the description adds important semantic guidance: the section must be one of the slugs returned by the sections endpoint. This links the parameter to a sibling tool and clarifies how to obtain valid values.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('The New Yorker section headlines'), and clarifies that it returns fresh headlines from one public New Yorker section feed. It clearly separates this from article, author, and news sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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 clear context: it is for fresh section headlines from The New Yorker, and it explicitly states that the section must be a slug returned by the sections endpoint. This gives a concrete prerequisite, though it does not explicitly discuss when to use alternatives or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.