List all 9to5Mac topic sections accepted by the headlines endpoint, returning each section's slug, display name, and feed URL.
Get 9to5Mac sections. Lists the 35 9to5Mac topic guides that the headlines endpoint accepts as section. Each has a slug (for example iphone, mac-studio or carplay), a display name and the guide's feed 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the return shape: each entry has a `slug`, a display `name`, and a feed `url`, plus the total count of 35. It does not mention caching, freshness, or rate limits, which are minor for a static directory list.
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 tool's identity, then the scope, then the returned fields with concrete slug examples. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is repeated from structured data.
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 zero-parameter, no-annotation directory tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential information: what it lists, how many items, what each item contains, and how the output relates to the headlines endpoint. Only marginal behavioral details are absent.
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly describes the outbound data fields (slug, name, url) that a caller would use elsewhere, which is useful even though there is nothing to say about input parameters.
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) and resource (9to5Mac sections) and immediately clarifies what the resource actually is: the 35 topic guides accepted as the `section` value by the headlines endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ninetofivemac_headlines or ninetofivemac_news without the agent needing to open a schema.
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?
Usage context is clearly conveyed by naming the headlines endpoint and the `section` parameter it feeds, so the agent knows this is a lookup/directory call whose output enables other calls. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or a named alternative, keeping it just short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.