Retrieve every public Raw Story section and topic hub with live feeds, returning a clean JSON inventory for building navigation, feeds, or content discovery.
Get Raw Story sections. Returns the public Raw Story section and topic hub inventory: every hub the site publishes with a live feed.
| 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the results are public and limited to sections/hubs with a live feed, which is useful context. However, it does not mention output size, pagination, whether slugs or IDs are returned, or any other behavioral characteristics beyond a flat inventory listing.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and resource, and the second immediately defines the exact scope of the return value. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.
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 simple no-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, the return scope, and the inclusion criterion. A slightly richer statement about the shape of each returned hub could push it higher, but nothing essential is missing for a correct call.
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 has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description adequately conveys what the no-argument call returns.
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 and resource ('Get Raw Story sections') and then clarifies exactly what is returned: the public section and topic hub inventory with every hub that has a live feed. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like rawstory_article, rawstory_news, and rawstory_headlines, which serve different purposes.
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 description implies when the tool is useful—when an agent needs the site's section and topic hub inventory—but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives such as rawstory_news, rawstory_headlines, or other publisher section tools. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops at implied usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.