List TechRadar's 25 top-level sections accepted by its headlines feed, returning each section's slug, name, and URL. Use the slugs to query specific TechRadar topics.
Get TechRadar sections. Lists the 25 top-level TechRadar sections that techradar-headlines accepts, such as computing, phones, best, deals and how-to. Each entry has a slug, a display name and the section page 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, and it does disclose the expected result size (25 entries) and the shape of each entry (slug, name, url) even though no output schema exists. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but for a zero-parameter enumeration endpoint there is little behavioral risk left unstated.
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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the return-shape detail trailing. Every clause earns its place: the count, the examples, and the downstream dependency all reduce ambiguity.
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 no-param, no-output-schema listing tool, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: what it returns (slug/name/url), how many items, and which sibling consumes the values. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.
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 no parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond the baseline. The description correctly stays silent on parameter syntax and instead spends its words on the return values.
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 (Get/Lists) and resource (TechRadar sections), then quantifies it (25 top-level sections) and gives examples. It also distinguishes itself from sibling techradar-headlines by explaining the relationship between them, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening schemas.
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 explicitly ties the tool to techradar-headlines by stating these are the sections that tool 'accepts', which tells the agent this is a discovery/lookup step for that sibling. It stops short of an explicit 'call this first when you need a section value' instruction or any exclusion, so it is clear context but not full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.