List ScreenRant RSS sections with slugs, names, and feed URLs to identify valid section inputs for fetching ScreenRant headlines.
Get ScreenRant RSS sections. Lists the 34 ScreenRant sections that screenrant-headlines accepts, spanning movies, TV, reality TV, comics, gaming, anime, books, interviews and videos. Each entry has a slug, a display name and the section's feed url.
| 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 full burden and does well for a simple read-only enumeration: it discloses the count (34), the category coverage, and the exact fields returned per entry (slug, name, url). It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the list is static, but for a non-mutating lookup those omissions are minor.
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 short sentences with zero waste, front-loaded with the core action before elaborating on scope and return shape. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct 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?
For a no-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, how many entries, the categories covered, the per-entry fields, and the companion tool it feeds. Nothing essential is missing.
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. The description adds no parameter semantics because none exist, and instead usefully describes the shape of each returned entry.
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) and resource (ScreenRant RSS sections), then enumerates exactly what the list contains: 34 sections across named categories with slug, name, and feed URL. It explicitly ties itself to the sibling `screenrant-headlines` by saying these are the sections that tool accepts, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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 description implies the primary use case: discovering valid section slugs before calling `screenrant-headlines`. It names that sibling and explains the relationship, giving clear context, but it does not state an explicit when/when-not rule or name alternatives beyond the one tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.