Discover all 9to5Google sections, returning 58 topic guide slugs and five editorial feed slugs for use with the headlines endpoint.
Discover 9to5Google sections. Returns the 58 topic guides linked by the current first-party Guides directory and five separately navigable editorial feeds. Use each slug with the headlines endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the return shape concretely: 58 topic guides from the first-party Guides directory plus five separately navigable editorial feeds. It doesn't mention auth, rate limits, or pagination, which are minor for a no-parameter read/discovery endpoint.
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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then payload composition, then the follow-up action. 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?
For a parameterless discovery tool with no output schema, the description explains what comes back and how to use it, which is essentially everything an agent needs. The only gap is that it doesn't confirm whether the slugs are stable or how to interpret the five editorial feeds versus the 58 guides.
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 the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to explain. The description doesn't need to add argument detail, and it confirms the tool is a pure enumeration call.
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+resource ("Discover 9to5Google sections") and quantifies the payload: 58 topic guides plus five editorial feeds. It names the headlines endpoint as the downstream consumer, which partially distinguishes it from siblings like ninetofivegoogle_headlines and ninetofivegoogle_news, but it doesn't explicitly contrast itself against those tools.
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?
"Use each slug with the headlines endpoint" gives an explicit chaining instruction, which is genuine usage guidance. It does not state when-not-to-use or name alternative discovery tools, so it falls short of a full 5, but the primary workflow is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.