Retrieve all 22 currently reachable Sky Sports navigation sections as structured data to map live sport categories.
Get Sky Sports sections. Returns the 22 currently reachable sections in the live Sky Sports sports navigation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that the sections are the "currently reachable" ones from the "live" navigation, hinting at limited/volatile coverage. However it says nothing about whether the list can be empty, whether it is cached, or auth requirements.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the count/scope detail second. Nothing is wasted.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should do more: it does not describe the shape of a returned section (name, slug, url, id) that an agent would need to chain into article/news tools. The count detail is helpful but the return contract is unspecified.
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 there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline for a no-param tool applies. No parameter-level information is missing.
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 clear verb and resource ("Get Sky Sports sections") and adds that it returns the 22 currently reachable sections in the live sports navigation. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like skysports_news, skysports_headlines, or skysports_article, but the resource is unambiguous.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many skysports_* siblings. Usage is only implied by the word "sections".
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.