Retrieve current New York Daily News headlines by section, returning structured article titles from a public page.
Get New York Daily News section headlines. Returns fresh headlines from one public New York Daily News section page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | New York Daily News section slug |
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 must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states that it 'Returns fresh headlines', which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, mention any rate limits, or describe what happens on invalid input. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could include slightly more detail without becoming verbose.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole source of context. It mentions that it returns headlines but does not specify the format, pagination, or any limits. For a tool that returns data, this is a notable gap. The agent may not know what to expect in the response.
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 has 100% description coverage for the only parameter 'section', which is documented as a 'New York Daily News section slug' with an enum. The description adds no additional meaning or guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description adds no extra value.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'New York Daily News section headlines', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling headline tools for other publications. It does not, however, elaborate on what 'headlines' includes or how they are structured, leaving some ambiguity.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions for choosing it over other headline tools or mention any exclusions. An agent would have to infer that this tool is for New York Daily News only, but there is no explicit routing advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.