Lists The Hill RSS section slugs accepted by the headlines endpoint, including each section's slug, display name, and URL.
Get The Hill RSS sections. Lists the 19 The Hill section slugs that the headlines endpoint accepts, such as home, policy, senate, defense and technology. Each entry has the section slug, its display name and its 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 and does reasonably well: it discloses the fixed cardinality (19 sections) and the exact shape of each entry ('slug', 'name', 'url'). It doesn't state that the list is static/cacheable or that it takes no inputs, but for a zero-parameter enumeration this is solid disclosure.
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: what it is, what it contains, and what each entry looks like. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the examples are illustrative rather than filler.
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?
With no output schema, explaining the return fields (slug, name, url) is exactly the missing piece an agent needs, and the count plus example slugs give full scope. Nothing needed to call this 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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's enumeration of example slugs and returned fields is a bonus, though it is arguably more about return values than parameters.
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 ('Get The Hill RSS sections') and immediately clarifies it's a slug catalog rather than content. This distinguishes it from siblings like thehill_headlines and thehill_news without opening their 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?
The phrase 'that the headlines endpoint accepts' clearly implies this is the discovery step before calling thehill_headlines, giving real context for when to use it. It stops short of an explicit 'call this first' instruction or naming the sibling tool directly, so it's clear context but not full routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.