Fetch fresh headlines from a chosen ScreenRant RSS section (movies, TV, gaming, etc.) to stay updated. Provide a section slug and get clean JSON results.
Get ScreenRant section headlines. Returns fresh headlines from one public ScreenRant RSS section.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | ScreenRant RSS 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that headlines are 'fresh' and come from a 'public' RSS section, which adds some context about recency and accessibility. However, it doesn't disclose return format, pagination, rate limits, or what happens on invalid sections. The description adds modest value but leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It avoids fluff and every word earns its place. It could arguably add a bit more usage guidance, but as written it is concise and well-structured.
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 simple one-parameter headlines tool, the description is mostly adequate. The schema covers the parameter fully, and the description states the source and freshness. However, with no output schema and no annotations, an agent might benefit from knowing the return shape (e.g., list of headline strings) and whether the tool supports only the listed sections. It's complete enough for basic use but not fully self-sufficient.
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 description coverage is 100% — the only parameter 'section' has a description ('ScreenRant RSS section slug') and an enum of 34 valid values. The description adds the context that the section is an RSS section, which aligns with the schema. Since the schema already documents the parameter fully, the description doesn't need to add much, and the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Get') and resource ('ScreenRant section headlines'), and clarifies it returns fresh headlines from one public RSS section. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like screenrant_news or screenrant_sections, but the resource and scope are clear enough for an agent to understand what this tool does.
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 context: it's for fetching headlines from a specific ScreenRant RSS section. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like screenrant_news, screenrant_sections, or screenrant_article, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.