Retrieve SFGate section inventory with public RSS feed links for news, business, sports, and lifestyle topics.
Get SFGate sections. Returns the SFGATE feed inventory (Top News, Bay Area, Business and Technology, Entertainment, Celebrity, Food and Dining, Travel, Routes, Top Sports, Giants, 49ers, Warriors), each linking to its public RSS feed.
| 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 full behavioral burden. It clearly states the output is the SFGATE feed inventory and that sections link to public RSS feeds, which conveys a read-only, no-auth expectation. It does not detail output format or freshness, but for a zero-parameter list tool the disclosed behavior 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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and result, then efficiently enumerates the section names. Every element adds value and there is no filler.
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 parameterless listing tool, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what will be returned, which sections are included, and that each is linked to a public RSS feed. No output schema is present, but the described output is straightforward and self-contained.
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 input schema has zero properties and no required parameters, so the description correctly avoids parameter documentation. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is appropriately handled; no additional parameter semantics are needed.
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?
Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get SFGate sections.' It further distinguishes itself by enumerating the exact feed inventory (Top News, Bay Area, etc.) and notes each links to its public RSS feed, clearly separating it from article, headline, and news tools.
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 tool is for retrieving SFGate's section/RSS inventory, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over sfgate_article, sfgate_headlines, or sfgate_news. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned, so usage context is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.