Fetch the public RNZ news section inventory, returning one RSS feed per section for use with rnz-headlines.
Get RNZ sections. Returns the public RNZ news section inventory (one RSS feed each) accepted by rnz-headlines.
| 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, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: the inventory is public, contains one RSS feed per section, and is tied to rnz-headlines. It does not describe the return format or any rate-limit/auth behavior, but for a zero-parameter read-only tool this is reasonable.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action first and then adds the key detail about the returned inventory. 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?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context: it returns a public RNZ section inventory with one RSS feed per section and relates to rnz-headlines. It could mention the exact output shape, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a major 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameters.
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 clearly states the tool gets RNZ sections and returns the public section inventory. It identifies the resource and scope, and the mention of rnz-headlines helps place it in context, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling section 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 usage by noting the sections are 'accepted by rnz-headlines,' suggesting this tool is a prerequisite for headline calls. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like rnz_headlines or other section tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.