Retrieves public Toronto Star section names for use with the headlines endpoint.
Get Toronto Star sections. Returns the public Toronto Star section navigation accepted 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the data is 'public' (implying no auth) and that the output is 'navigation' structured for the headlines endpoint. This adds useful behavioral context beyond a mere 'Get sections' statementasi. While it doesn't detail potential errors or response format, the simplicity of a zero-parameter tool makes this adequate.
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 short sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence states the action, and the second adds essential context about the expected output. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded for quick comprehension.
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, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete: it states what the tool does and what it returns. The only minor gap is that the precise structure of the 'navigation' (e.g., list of objects vs. strings) is not described, but the reference to the headlines endpoint partially covers this. Overall, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.
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 no input parameters (schema properties empty, 0 required), so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameters because none exist. It correctly avoids inventing parameter details, and the schema coverage is trivially 100% since there is nothing to cover.
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 ('Toronto Star sections'), and further clarifies that it returns the 'public Toronto Star section navigation accepted by the headlines endpoint.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like torontostar_article and torontostar_author. The wording is unambiguous and directly communicates the tool's function.
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 provides context that the output is accepted by the headlines endpoint, implying the tool is used to fetch section identifiers for headline queries. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., torontostar_article for articles) or state conditions when this tool should be preferred over others. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, earning a mid-range score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.