Access the comprehensive list of public RSS feeds and topic slugs available on Phys.org. Identify the specific identifiers needed for news headline collection.
List Phys.org RSS sections. Lists the seven topic feeds in Phys.org's Topics menu and its two additional public Breaking and Editorials feeds. Every returned slug is accepted by physorg-headlines. Search and tag feeds are not included.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the count and nature of returned feeds (seven topic feeds plus Breaking and Editorials) and the return type (slugs). It does not describe the payload shape beyond slugs, but for a fixed read-only list this is largely sufficient.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by scope detail and exclusion. No filler; each sentence conveys distinct, actionable information.
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-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is listed, the composition of the list, the return unit (slugs), the downstream consumer, and the exclusions. 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter surface the description needs to compensate for.
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 ('List Phys.org RSS sections') and immediately distinguishes scope by naming the downstream sibling 'physorg-headlines' and ruling out search/tag feeds. An agent can tell this apart from physorg_headlines/physorg_news without opening any 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?
It gives clear context for use by noting every returned slug is accepted by physorg-headlines, which signals the typical next step. It also states what is excluded (search and tag feeds) but does not give an explicit when-not-to-use-this alternative in a routing sense.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.