Retrieves the complete TechCrunch category inventory accepted by the headlines API, enabling you to filter articles by section.
Get TechCrunch categories. Returns the complete public category inventory accepted by /api/v1/techcrunch/headlines.
| 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 discloses that the tool returns the 'complete public category inventory' and that it is public, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but 'Get' and 'Returns' make that clear, and for a simple category list, no further behavior like pagination is needed.
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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds the essential details about completeness and the downstream endpoint. Every clause 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned, that it is the complete public inventory, and that it is accepted by headlines. The only minor gap is not explicitly describing the output format or how to pass the categories into the headlines endpoint, but the 'accepted by' reference provides strong implicit context.
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, and the empty schema is 100% covered, so the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details. The baseline 4 applies because there is nothing to explain.
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 resource ('TechCrunch categories'), and the second sentence adds exact scope: 'complete public category inventory accepted by /api/v1/techcrunch/headlines'. This immediately differentiates it from sibling tools like techcrunch_headlines and other publishers' sections endpoints.
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 its use by stating the output is 'accepted by /api/v1/techcrunch/headlines', telling an agent this is the right source for valid category values for the headlines endpoint. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.