Retrieve current headlines from any Evening Standard section by selecting its RSS section slug. Choose from news, sport, business, lifestyle, culture, and more for clean, structured headline data.
Get Evening Standard section headlines. Returns fresh headlines from one public Evening Standard RSS section.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | Evening Standard RSS section slug |
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 itself discloses that this is a read-style fetch of 'fresh headlines' from 'one public ... RSS section'; the word 'one' usefully signals no cross-section aggregation. It does not mention return shape, limits, or failure behavior, so the burden is only partially carried.
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, front-loaded with the resource and scope; 'fresh', 'public', 'RSS', and 'one' all add useful constraints. No filler or boilerplate.
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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers source, scope, and freshness, and the enum covers valid values. It would be stronger with a hint about what the returned headlines look like or how to enumerate sections, but nothing critical is missing for a basic invocation.
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 documents `section` as the 'Evening Standard RSS section slug' with a full enum, so the description adds little new meaning. It reinforces that the section is an RSS section, but doesn't explain selection criteria beyond that; baseline 3 applies due to high schema 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get Evening Standard section headlines') plus an exact source qualifier ('from one public Evening Standard RSS section'). The single-section RSS scope separates it from article/author/section-list siblings even though no sibling is named.
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 natural use case—fetching headlines for a chosen section—but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not point to alternatives such as standard_sections or standard_news. It is adequate but left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.