Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

sciencealert_sections

List the eight ScienceAlert sections with their slugs, names, and URLs so you can pick a valid section for headline requests.

Instructions

Get ScienceAlert sections. Lists the eight top-level ScienceAlert sections that sciencealert-headlines accepts: space, health, environment, humans, tech, nature, physics and this-week-in-science. Each entry has a slug, a display name and the section page url.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "sciencealert_sections"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.7

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the return shape (slug, display name, url) plus the complete set of accepted identifiers. It is implicitly a safe read-only listing, though it never explicitly states 'read-only' or mentions auth/rate limits, which are largely moot for a static zero-param enumeration.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, every clause earning its place: what it returns, the exact valid values, and the entry shape. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-param, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description is fully sufficient: it explains the return values, the accepted identifiers, and the sibling relationship. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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. The enumerated section values add useful semantic anchoring even though there is no schema to supplement.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get ScienceAlert sections', 'Lists the eight top-level ScienceAlert sections') and enumerates the exact values returned. It also names the sibling tool sciencealert-headlines that consumes these sections, so the agent can place it precisely.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The line 'the eight top-level ScienceAlert sections that sciencealert-headlines accepts' strongly implies this is a discovery/lookup step that feeds the headlines tool. It gives clear context but never explicitly states when to use this vs. alternatives with a directive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools