List all Sydney Morning Herald sections accepted by /smh/headlines, including each section's slug, display name, and public section-front URL.
Get The Sydney Morning Herald sections. Lists every Sydney Morning Herald section accepted by /smh/headlines (96 sections from the site's own section menu), each with its slug, display name, and public section-front 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. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or 'safe,' but it does disclose the nature of the operation ('Get', 'Lists') and the exact content (every section, from the site's menu, with slug, name, URL). It adds context about the source and count, which is beyond the obvious. For a simple list operation, this is adequate disclosure.
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 zero wasted words. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds precise detail (count, fields, source) without redundancy. Every word 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 parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, what it returns (with specific fields), and even the count and source. The reference to /smh/headlines provides context for downstream usage. Nothing is missing that an agent would need to call it correctly.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't add any parameter-related info because none exists. This is appropriate.
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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Sydney Morning Herald sections'), and differentiates itself by specifying that it lists every section accepted by /smh/headlines, including the count (96) and the fields returned (slug, display name, URL). This distinguishes it from other smh_* tools and similar section-listing tools for other publications.
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 when to use it: it provides the list of sections accepted by /smh/headlines, so an agent knows this is the source for valid section slugs for that tool. It also references the site's own menu as the source. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like smh_news or smh_article, nor does it state when not to use it. The connection to /smh/headlines is a clear but implicit usage signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.