Lists all 31 Stuff sections accepted by stuff-headlines, including regional and sport slugs, with each section's slug, display name, and Atom feed URL.
Get Stuff sections. Lists the 31 Stuff sections that stuff-headlines accepts, including regional and sport slugs that contain a slash, such as nz-news/auckland and sport/rugby. Each entry has a slug, a display name and the section's Atom feed 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 burden well for a read-only reference tool: it discloses the cardinality (31 sections), the exact output fields (slug, name, url), and the non-obvious quirk that some slugs contain slashes. It omits things like freshness/staticness of the list, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb+resource, then the scope, then the return shape. Zero filler; every sentence adds a distinct piece of information.
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, annotation-free, output-schema-free tool, the description compensates by describing the return fields and cardinality, which an agent would otherwise have to discover by calling. Nothing critical is missing, though a note on whether the list is stable would round it out.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond that; baseline for 0 params is 4. The description correctly adds no spurious parameter guidance.
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 Stuff sections') and immediately grounds it in the ecosystem by naming the consumer tool, stuff-headlines. The description explicitly distinguishes this from the many sibling *_sections and Stuff tools by tying it to the headlines endpoint.
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?
It makes the use-case clear: these are the section slugs that `stuff-headlines` accepts, so an agent knows to call this to discover valid section values. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or list alternate discovery paths, so it falls just short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.