Lists every top-level USA Today section accepted by the headlines endpoint, returning slug, display name, and landing-page URL for section-based queries.
List USA Today sections. Lists every top-level USA Today section accepted by /usatoday/headlines, with its slug, display name, and landing-page URL.
| 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists every top-level section, which conveys read-only behavior and scopes the result set. However, it does not mention potential pagination, error cases, or whether authentication is required, though these may be less critical for a list operation.
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-loaded with the purpose and then providing specific details about the output and relationship to /usatoday/headlines. There is no wasted verbiage.
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 description fully explains what the tool returns (slug, display name, URL) and the scope (top-level sections accepted by /usatoday/headlines). Since there is no output schema, this covers the return values. For a simple list tool with no parameters, nothing essential is missing.
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 there is nothing to explain. The description mentions the output fields (slug, display name, URL), which is relevant but not parameter-related. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, this scores 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 clearly states the tool lists USA Today sections, specifying the scope (top-level sections), the exact fields returned (slug, display name, URL), and its relationship to /usatoday/headlines. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like usatoday_headlines or usatoday_news by focusing on section enumeration.
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 connects the tool to /usatoday/headlines, implying it is used to obtain valid section slugs for headline queries. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for a simple listing tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.