List ProPublica's 33 browse topics accepted by the headlines tool, with each topic's slug, name, and feed URL. Use it to find valid topic slugs before fetching headlines.
Get ProPublica topics. Lists the 33 topics from ProPublica's Browse Topics menu that propublica-headlines accepts. Each entry has a stable slug, a display name and the topic's feed url. Takes no parameters.
| 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 full burden and does disclose useful behavior: fixed cardinality (33 topics), stable slugs, and the presence of a per-topic feed URL. It says nothing about ordering, caching, or freshness/rate limits, but for a static zero-argument listing this is close to 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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the detail about entry fields. Efficient overall; the closing 'Takes no parameters' sentence is the one piece that earns little.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of the returned fields (slug, name, url) is exactly the compensation needed. For a zero-parameter, static listing tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke or consume 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?
Zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The statement 'Takes no parameters' is accurate and prevents the agent from hunting for a required argument, though it is mildly redundant with the empty schema.
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?
Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Get ProPublica topics') and pins the scope precisely: 'the 33 topics from ProPublica's Browse Topics menu that propublica-headlines accepts.' An agent can tell exactly what it returns and how it relates to the propublica_headlines sibling.
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 implies the intended use — fetching valid topic slugs that propublica_headlines accepts — which is effectively a when-to-use condition. It stops short of explicitly telling the agent to call this first to discover topics, so it's clear context but not a full routing statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.