List RNZ news sections with slug, name, and feed URL to find valid section values for RNZ headline requests.
Get RNZ sections. Lists the 19 RNZ news sections that rnz-headlines accepts, such as news, national, political, pacific and te-manu-korihi. Each entry has a slug, a display name and the section's feed url. RNZ's programme-schedule and recipe feeds are not included.
| 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 exact entry count (19), the fields returned (slug, name, url), and an explicit exclusion (programme-schedule and recipe feeds). It does not mention auth or caching, but for a static catalog read this is solid.
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?
Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then scope, then entry shape, then exclusions. The opening 'Get RNZ sections.' is slightly redundant with the name, but everything else 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?
With no output schema present, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the exclusion set. For a no-parameter enumeration tool with no annotations, this is complete enough to call 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description instead documents the shape of returned entries, which is useful but not a parameter concern.
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?
States a specific verb (get/list) and resource (RNZ news sections), and immediately ties it to the sibling it feeds (`rnz-headlines`). An agent can distinguish it from rnz_headlines and rnz_news without opening a schema.
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?
Clearly signals the tool's role: enumerating the 19 slugs that `rnz-headlines` accepts, so an agent knows to call this before filtering headlines. It does not explicitly say 'do not use this to fetch articles', but the implied workflow is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.