Retrieve live-verified Punch section inventory used by the headlines endpoint to identify valid topics before requesting headlines.
Get Punch sections. Returns the live-verified Punch topic (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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add the genuinely behavioral trait 'live-verified,' indicating data freshness, and 'Get... Returns' implies a safe read operation. However, it does not disclose return shape, pagination, rate limits, or auth needs, so coverage is partial but non-zero.
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 short sentences with no filler: the first states the action, the second adds the live-verified qualifier and the relationship to the headlines endpoint. Every phrase earns its place and the core action is front-loaded.
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, no-output-schema inventory tool, the description adequately explains what is returned (the topic/section inventory) and where it fits (used by the headlines endpoint). The only modest gap is not describing the structure of the returned inventory list, but this is minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 and the schema has 100% description coverage with an empty properties object, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Per calibration, a zero-parameter tool earns a baseline of 4.
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 a specific verb-resource pairing ('Get Punch sections') and adds that it returns the 'live-verified Punch topic (section) inventory,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling punch_article, punch_author, punch_headlines, and punch_news tools. It is specific and non-vague, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives.
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 phrase 'used by the headlines endpoint' gives an implied usage context—this tool supplies the section inventory that feeds headlines queries—but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.