List valid NZ Herald section slugs, names, and URLs to query headlines by category such as nz, business, rugby, technology, or world.
Get NZ Herald sections. Lists the NZ Herald section slugs accepted by nzherald-headlines, such as nz, business, rugby, technology and world. Each entry has its slug, a display name (for example New Zealand for nz) and a 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 and no output schema, the description carries the disclosure burden and does so reasonably: it reveals the three returned fields (slug, name, url) and the slug-to-display-name relationship. It omits any statement about freshness, count, or ordering, and never says explicitly that the call is read-only, but for a zero-parameter lookup the disclosed behavior is adequate.
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, front-loaded with the purpose before the examples. The example slug list and the `nz`/`New Zealand` mapping both earn their place by teaching the agent the slug format, though the sentence is slightly dense with examples.
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-param discovery endpoint with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the calling relationship to nzherald-headlines, and the shape of each returned entry. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether the list is exhaustive or how many sections are returned.
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 (empty schema), so the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing parameter-related because there is nothing to describe; the listed example slugs are illustrative values, not inputs.
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 and resource ('Get NZ Herald sections') and immediately scopes it as the source of the section slugs consumed by nzherald-headlines. The agent can distinguish this discovery tool from the sibling headlines tool without opening either 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?
The description says these slugs are 'accepted by `nzherald-headlines`', which effectively tells the agent to call this before or alongside that tool. It does not add explicit exclusions ('do not use for article content'), but the intended usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.