Retrieve the list of available RSS sections from Page Six, providing the inventory used by the headlines endpoint.
Get Page Six RSS sections. Returns the public Page Six RSS section inventory used 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the public Page Six RSS section inventory, which is a clear behavioral statement. However, it does not describe the output format, potential side effects (though it is likely read-only), or any constraints such as rate limits or authentication requirements. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core function and adds a relevant contextual note about its relationship to the headlines endpoint.
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 tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It states what it returns and its role. However, it does not specify the exact structure of the returned inventory (e.g., list of section names and URLs), which might be useful for an agent. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.
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 schema provides no parameter documentation. According to the baseline rule for zero parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameters that do not exist.
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 states 'Get Page Six RSS sections' with a clear verb and resource, and further explains it returns the public RSS section inventory used by the headlines endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling sections tools for other publications by naming Page Six explicitly.
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 via the name and mentions it is used by the headlines endpoint, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.