Retrieve the public category and section inventory for The Straits Times. Use it to list available sections before querying headlines.
Get The Straits Times sections. Returns the public The Straits Times category/section inventory used by the headlines endpoint.
| 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool returns a public inventory, indicating a read-only operation, but it does not disclose details like output format, pagination, or any potential errors. For a zero-parameter tool, this is adequate but not rich, so a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 concise sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the additional detail about the headlines endpoint is relevant and not verbose. 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?
The description explains what the tool returns and its relationship to the headlines endpoint, but it does not describe the structure of the returned inventory (e.g., whether it's a list of names, objects with IDs, etc.). Since there is no output schema, the description could be more explicit about the return format. This leaves some ambiguity, so a score of 3 is given.
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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. The schema coverage is 100% vacuously, and there are no parameters to document. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameter-specific information is required.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'The Straits Times sections', and further specifies that it returns the public category/section inventory used by the headlines endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like straitstimes_headlines or straitstimes_article, and the mention of the headlines endpoint adds useful context.
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 that the tool is used to fetch the section list needed by the headlines endpoint, which provides some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other section tools (e.g., nyt_sections) or when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it earns a middle score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.