Fetch Sky News sections to list 9 official RSS feeds and 5 additional sections without RSS from the public hub page.
Get Sky News sections. Returns the Sky News section inventory: 9 official RSS feeds plus 5 additional site sections with no RSS feed, listed from their public hub page instead.
| 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the return composition and the source quirk ('listed from their public hub page instead'), but it does not mention output shape, freshness, or any other caveats. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
Two sentences with no filler: the first states the action, the second gives essential detail about what is returned and from where. Every clause 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?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it returns, how many items, and the source distinction. Nothing material 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 has zero parameters and the schema documents this with empty properties, so there is nothing parameter-level to add. The description's behavior explanation substitutes for parameter 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?
The description names the resource ('Sky News sections') and the action ('Get'), then specifies the exact inventory: 9 official RSS feeds plus 5 additional sections. This precise scoping distinguishes it from generic section-list tools even without naming a sibling.
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 intended use is implied: call this when you need the Sky News section inventory. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance, but the description's scope makes the use case reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.