List Blaze Media's verified article-bearing editorial and show sections accepted by the headlines endpoint, including contributors but excluding the off-site Profile feed.
List Blaze Media sections. Returns all verified article-bearing editorial and show sections accepted by the headlines endpoint. The contributors collection is included; the off-site Profile feed is excluded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are 'verified article-bearing' sections and that contributors are included while the off-site Profile feed is excluded, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or return shape.
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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the inclusion/exclusion scoping trailing usefully. No filler, though the second and third sentences could be tightened.
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, annotation-free list tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and what is in/out of scope, which is close to what an agent needs. It lacks only ordering/format details.
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 parameter semantics are moot and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description contradicts or complicates the empty schema.
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+resource ('List Blaze Media sections') and clarifies scope by describing what the headlines endpoint accepts, including contributors and excluding the off-site Profile feed. It distinguishes its scope but does not explicitly name sibling tools like theblaze_headlines, keeping it just short of a 5.
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 reference to 'the headlines endpoint' implies this tool is used to discover sections before querying headlines, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.