List all New York Times sections with their slugs, display names, and public feed URLs for use with the headlines endpoint.
List New York Times sections. Lists every New York Times section accepted by /nyt/headlines, with its slug, display name, and public 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It clearly indicates a read-only list operation ('List...') and enriches by specifying the returned data (slug, display name, feed URL). It could explicitly state non-destructiveness, but 'List' is unambiguous enough. No contradictions.
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 sentences, no fluff. The action and output are front-loaded, and each detail serves a purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.
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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what it does and what it returns. It even connects to /nyt/headlines, which is useful for agents planning downstream calls. Nothing essential is missing.
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, so the input schema provides no constraints. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't. Baseline for no parameters is 4, and no additional info is required.
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 action (List), the resource (New York Times sections), and the specific output fields (slug, display name, public feed URL). It also distinguishes it from related tools like nyt_headlines by linking it to that tool's accepted sections.
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 implies usage context by noting the sections are 'accepted by /nyt/headlines', which hints at integration purposes. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like nyt_categories, nor does it mention any exclusions. The guidance is present but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.