Retrieve headlines from a chosen Tom's Hardware section, such as GPUs, reviews, or deals, from one public hub page.
Get Tom's Hardware section headlines. Returns fresh Tom's Hardware headlines from one public section hub page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | Tom's Hardware 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds minimal value beyond the action: 'fresh' hints at recency and 'from one public section hub page' implies a bounded result set, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or any potential limitations. This is thin for a tool with no annotation safety signals.
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 short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the second sentence adds a scoping detail. Every word earns its place.
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 simple one-parameter headline tool, the description is adequate but thin. It does not state what a returned 'headline' contains (e.g., title, URL, date) or how many are returned, which an agent might need to judge output fit. Still, the low complexity and enum-defined parameter keep this at minimum viable.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% (section is described as 'Tom's Hardware section slug' and constrained by a 20-value enum), so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description adds little beyond the word 'section' in the text, which matches the baseline for high coverage.
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 and resource ('Get Tom's Hardware section headlines') and clarifies the scope via 'from one public section hub page'. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like tomshardware_news or tomshardware_sections, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.
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 for fetching headlines for a Tom's Hardware section, providing some context on when to use it. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like tomshardware_news, tomshardware_sections, or techradar_headlines, and no exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.