Retrieve Tom's Guide top-level content sections to structure headlines data. Returns a clean JSON taxonomy for filtering or organizing articles by vertical.
Get Tom's Guide sections. Returns the public Tom's Guide top-level content vertical taxonomy used by the headlines endpoint.
| 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the data is public and top-level and that it feeds the headlines endpoint, but it does not describe the response shape or explicitly confirm read-only behavior, though 'Get' and zero parameters make that obvious. This is adequate but minimal.
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, roughly 20 words, front-loaded with the verb-resource pair; the second sentence adds scope and purpose without redundancy. There is no filler or repeated schema information.
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, read-only taxonomy listing, the description covers the essential facts: what it returns, its scope (public, top-level), and its relationship to the headlines endpoint. It omits the exact output format, but no output schema exists and invocation is trivial, so the gap is minor.
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 the schema already fully covers the parameter surface (100% coverage). The description needs to add no parameter semantics, so the baseline 4 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?
Description uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('Tom's Guide sections') and further specifies it returns 'the public Tom's Guide top-level content vertical taxonomy used by the headlines endpoint.' This distinguishes it from tomsguide_article, tomsguide_news, tomsguide_headlines, and other publications' *_sections 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 'used by the headlines endpoint' clause gives clear context: this tool is for discovering valid section values before querying headlines. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for routine selection among the Tom's Guide sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.