List public 9to5Mac topic guides and their RSS feed URLs, so you can target valid sections when requesting headlines.
Get 9to5Mac sections. Returns the public 9to5Mac topic guides (each with its own RSS feed) accepted 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It adequately conveys that this is a public, read-only retrieval of topic guides and mentions the RSS-feed aspect, but it does not address pagination, output granularity, or error behavior. For a zero-parameter list endpoint, this is acceptable but not rich.
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?
Two tightly written sentences: the first names the operation and resource, the second gives the essential qualifying detail. No filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 simple parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (topic guides with RSS feeds) and how the result relates to the headlines endpoint. It stops short of specifying the exact output structure, but the given detail is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the description has no parameter burden to carry. The baseline of 4 applies because nothing about parameters is left unexplained.
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'), then adds meaningful detail by defining sections as public topic guides with their own RSS feeds. The reference to the headlines endpoint also differentiates it from related headline tools without requiring schema inspection.
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 signals the intended use by noting these sections are 'accepted by the headlines endpoint', which tells an agent this is the right tool for retrieving valid section values to feed into headlines. It does not name sibling tools or explicit exclusions, but the context is clear enough for routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.