Fetch the complete Times of India section list accepted by headlines API requests, covering national, international, topical, and India city editions.
Get The Times of India sections. Returns the complete public section inventory accepted by /api/v1/timesofindia/headlines: national and international topical sections, and India city editions.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the complete public section inventory and lists the categories (national/international topical sections and city editions), indicating a read-only operation. No contradictions exist. It does not mention any side effects or caveats, but for a simple sections-fetching tool, this 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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Get') and then specifies the return content. No unnecessary words or repetition. Very concise and easy to parse.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it tells the agent what it returns and the scope of the inventory. It does not explain pagination or error handling, but these are unlikely for a simple sections list. The description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly and understand the result.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameters to describe. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate. Per calibration, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4.
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 ('Get') and resource ('The Times of India sections'), and elaborates on the return content: the complete public section inventory accepted by /api/v1/timesofindia/headlines, including national/international topical sections and city editions. This clearly differentiates it from sibling section tools for other publications (e.g., nyt_sections) and from related Times of India tools like timesofindia_headlines.
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 tool is used to obtain valid section identifiers for the timesofindia/headlines endpoint, giving clear context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., timesofindia_news) or exclusions. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer the primary use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.