List all people-content sections with slug, display name, and listing URL so developers can find valid section keys for headline queries.
Get PEOPLE sections. Returns the full PEOPLE section/category navigation inventory (37 entries as of 2026-09-24), each with a slug, display name, and public listing URL. Use a returned slug as the section parameter on GET /people/headlines.
| 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 the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it returns a full inventory (37 entries) and the fields, implying a read-only operation. It doesn't mention any side effects, auth, or rate limits, but for a simple getter that's acceptable. 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, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by concise details on return fields and usage. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff.
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, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, how many entries, the structure, and how to use the results. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?
There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). Per the baseline for zero params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description doesn't need to explain parameters and instead adds context on return values and usage.
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 it gets PEOPLE sections and specifies the exact resource (PEOPLE section/category navigation inventory). It distinguishes itself from sibling section tools by the explicit 'PEOPLE' qualifier and describes the return contents (slug, display name, URL).
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?
It provides a clear usage instruction: use the returned slug as the section parameter on GET /people/headlines. This tells the agent when and how to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. The context is sufficient for a straightforward lookup tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.