Fetch Tom's Guide headlines for a given section. Submit a section slug to retrieve structured JSON from its public hub page.
Get Tom's Guide section headlines. Returns fresh Tom's Guide headlines from one public section hub page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | Tom's Guide section slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'fresh' headlines from a 'public' page, which hints at no auth and a live fetch, but it does not disclose rate limits, error handling, response format, or what happens for invalid sections. This is a significant gap for a tool that could have scraping limitations.
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 two sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and includes a brief source context. There is no filler or redundancy; every word contributes to the meaning.
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?
The tool is simple with one enum parameter and no output schema or annotations. The description conveys the basic purpose and source but omits what the returned headlines look like (list, objects, fields), any pagination, or potential failures. While not a complex tool, the lack of return-format information leaves the agent somewhat uncertain about what to expect.
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 schema description covers the only parameter completely ('Tom's Guide section slug') with an enum of valid values. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, but per the rubric this is acceptable since schema coverage is 100%. Baseline of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the tool gets Tom's Guide section headlines, with a specific verb and resource. It adds context by noting it comes from one public section hub page. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tomsguide_news or tomsguide_sections, so it's clear but not maximally distinctive.
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 usage by mentioning section headlines and the source page, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tomsguide_news, tomsguide_article, or tomsguide_sections. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.