Fetches headlines from a specified Raw Story section, returning fresh news for monitoring and aggregation.
Get Raw Story section headlines. Returns fresh headlines from one public Raw Story section feed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | Raw Story section slug |
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; it usefully discloses the operation is read-only in spirit, public (no auth), and scoped to one section feed. It doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or response shape, which would add transparency, but for a simple headline fetch this is adequate.
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 verb and resource are front-loaded and the second sentence adds freshness/public/scope. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one fully enumerated parameter, no output schema), the description explains what it returns and where the data comes from. It omits the exact return structure (e.g., whether headlines are plain strings or include URLs), but the headline use case is simple enough that this is a minor gap.
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 schema already documents the single parameter at 100% coverage, including an enum of valid section slugs and a description. The description's phrase 'one ... section feed' adds only marginal context that the section selects which feed to read, so baseline 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('Raw Story section headlines'), and clarifies scope ('from one public Raw Story section feed'). It distinguishes itself from article/author/sections tools by specifying headlines from a section, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, so not a 5.
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 clearly implies use when you want current headlines from a specific Raw Story section ('fresh headlines from one public Raw Story section feed'), giving the agent context on when to invoke it. However, it doesn't state when not to use it or mention alternatives like rawstory_news or rawstory_sections.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.