Fetch fresh Space.com headlines for a given section category. Provide a section slug to get current headlines from that public hub.
Get Space.com section headlines. Returns fresh Space.com headlines from one public category hub.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | Space.com category slug |
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 disclosure burden itself. 'Get' and 'Returns fresh ... headlines' signal a read-only, current-data operation, and 'one public category hub' hints at limited scope. It does not mention result count, ordering, pagination, rate limits, or authentication, but for a simple read-only headlines tool this is a minor gap.
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 short sentences with the core verb and resource front-loaded. The second sentence adds useful qualifiers ('fresh', 'one public category hub') without repeating schema content or adding filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 tool with one enum parameter, the schema handles parameter documentation completely. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves return-format details (e.g., number of headlines, ordering, whether URLs or dates are included) and sibling-selection guidance unspecified. It is minimally adequate for a simple read call.
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 fully covers the single parameter with a description ('Space.com category slug') and an exhaustive enum of valid sections. The description adds only the general notion that each call targets one category hub, which barely extends what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema description coverage.
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 states a specific action ('Get') and resource ('Space.com section headlines'), and clarifies that it returns fresh headlines from one category hub. This clearly identifies the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate it from related siblings like space_news or space_sections, so it stops short of a top score.
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 headlines from a single Space.com section, and the required 'section' parameter reinforces this. However, it gives no guidance about when to prefer it over siblings such as space_news or space_sections, and it names no alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.