List all top-level Reuters sections accepted by the /reuters/section endpoint, with slug, display name, and landing-page URL.
List Reuters sections. Lists every top-level Reuters section accepted by /reuters/section, with its slug, display name, and landing-page URL.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output fields but does not mention any additional behavioral details such as pagination, rate limits, or whether the list is exhaustive. For a simple read-only listing tool, this is acceptable but leaves some unknown behavior.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('List Reuters sections') and then a single clarifying sentence. There is zero waste; every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and output.
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 has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential information: what is returned and for what purpose. It does not mention pagination or limits, but for a simple list tool, this is a minor gap. It lacks any note about edge cases or caveats.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so description doesn't need to explain parameters. The description adds value by specifying what each list entry contains (slug, display name, URL), which goes beyond the schema and helps the agent understand the return format.
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 ('List') and resource ('Reuters sections'), and specifies the output fields (slug, display name, landing-page URL). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling reuters_section by stating these are the sections accepted by /reuters/section, which clearly differentiates it from similar tools.
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 the tool is used to obtain the set of valid sections for the /reuters/section endpoint, which is a clear use case. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like reuters_news, but the relationship to reuters_section is explicit enough for typical usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.