Fetch current headlines from a specific RNZ section by providing its slug. Returns fresh headlines from the chosen public feed.
Get RNZ section headlines. Returns fresh headlines from one public RNZ section feed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | RNZ 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context: 'public' implies no authentication is needed, and 'fresh' indicates current data. However, it does not disclose caching behavior, how many headlines are returned, pagination, rate limits, or failure modes, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a tool with no annotation support.
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 sentences totaling 13 words, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every word contributes meaning ('fresh', 'public', 'one', 'section feed' all carry signal). There is no waste or repetition of schema content.
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?
The tool is simple (one enum parameter, no nested objects), so the description is close to adequate. However, there is no output schema and the description never states the return shape—an agent cannot tell whether results are titles only, titles with links, or include publication dates. For a tool with zero annotations and no output schema, that missing information prevents full confidence in invoking it correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%: the single parameter 'section' has a description ('RNZ section slug') and a 19-value enum that fully documents valid inputs. The description adds marginal value by clarifying that the section selects the feed, but the schema already does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource ('Get RNZ section headlines') and clarifies it returns fresh headlines from one public RNZ section feed. It distinguishes the tool from RNZ sibling tools like rnz_article, rnz_author, and rnz_sections by focusing on headline retrieval, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from rnz_news, which likely overlaps in scope.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among the siblings are rnz_news and rnz_sections, which an agent could reasonably confuse with this tool, and the description offers no selection criteria, exclusions, or mention of alternatives. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.