Retrieve the 32 Salon RSS sections accepted by salon-headlines, including each section's slug, display name, and feed URL.
Get Salon RSS sections. Lists the 32 Salon sections that salon-headlines accepts, from home and news-and-politics to working_ahead. Each entry has a slug, a display name and the section's feed url. The list includes older event slugs such as oscars_2012 and sxsw_2013.
| 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 burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the fixed cardinality (32 sections), the shape of each entry (`slug`, `name`, `url`), and a non-obvious quirk that legacy event slugs like `oscars_2012` and `sxsw_2013` are included. It still omits ordering and the serialization format, so not a 5.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the count and field breakdown, then the legacy-slug caveat. Slightly redundant opening ("Get Salon RSS sections. Lists the 32 Salon sections...") but every sentence otherwise adds information.
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, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and the list size, which compensates well. Ordering, format, and whether the list is stable across calls are left unspecified, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing for a zero-parameter read.
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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing to document and the description correctly does not invent any input semantics.
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 and resource ("Get Salon RSS sections") and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling `salon_headlines` by describing itself as the list of sections that tool accepts. An agent can pick between them 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?
The reference to `salon-headlines` implies the workflow: call this to discover valid section slugs before requesting headlines. It gives clear context but never states the when-to-use condition or exclusions explicitly (e.g., that no filtering/querying is possible).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.