Find valid The Age section slugs, display names, and public URLs accepted by /theage/headlines before requesting headlines.
Get The Age sections. Lists every The Age section accepted by /theage/headlines (96 sections from the site's own section menu), each with its slug, display name, and public section-front 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 full burden. It discloses the behavior: a read-only enumeration of all 96 sections, including the fields returned (slug, display name, URL). It does not describe pagination or error cases, but for a zero-parameter listing tool, the disclosed behavior is sufficient.
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 with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded ('Get The Age sections'), followed immediately by the key details: count, source, and output fields. Every clause adds value.
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, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is listed, where the list comes from, how many entries to expect, and what fields are returned. It could explicitly state that the slug should be passed to /theage/headlines, but the cross-reference makes this inference straightforward.
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 there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. The schema already confirms no inputs are required, and the description adds useful context about the output rather than parameter semantics.
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 states a specific verb ('Lists'), a precise resource ('every The Age section'), and the exact scope ('96 sections from the site's own section menu'). It also names the sibling tool /theage/headlines to clarify what these sections are accepted by, which distinguishes it from other section-listing tools.
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 primary use case: call this tool to obtain valid section slugs for use with /theage/headlines. It gives clear context for when this tool is relevant, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives beyond the implicit relationship to theage_headlines.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.