Fetch current Slate article-card metadata by section from a public RSS feed. Use a section value returned by the available categories.
Slate section headlines. Returns current Slate article-card metadata from one public RSS feed. section must be one of the values returned by slate-categories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | No | Slate feed section |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the tool returns metadata from a public RSS feed, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or disclose potential errors or rate limits. For a simple read 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?
The description is two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the function, the second gives the prerequisite. It is well-structured, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.
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 tool with one optional parameter, the description provides the essential information: what it returns and how to select the section. It does not detail the return format, but since there is no output schema, a high-level description is acceptable. It could mention that it returns a list of headlines, but it is not critical.
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 schema already describes the section parameter with a complete enum of valid values, so baseline is 3. The description adds the guidance that the section must come from slate-categories, which reinforces the source of valid values and connects to a sibling tool. This adds marginal meaning beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool returns Slate section headlines as article-card metadata from a public RSS feed. It is distinct from slate_article (which likely fetches a full article) and slate_categories (which lists sections). The verb 'returns' and resource 'Slate section headlines' are specific and 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?
The description provides a concrete prerequisite: the section must be one of the values returned by slate-categories, telling the agent to call slate-categories first. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like slate_article, but the naming and context imply this is for headlines only. The guidance is useful but could be more explicit about when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.