Fetch fresh Variety headlines by section from a public vertical RSS feed. Specify a section slug to retrieve structured headline JSON.
Get Variety section headlines. Returns fresh Variety headlines from one public vertical RSS feed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | Variety vertical 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 must disclose behavioral traits itself. It reveals the source (RSS feed) and that headlines are 'fresh', but it does not mention response format, pagination, rate limits, error behavior, or that it is a read-only operation. It provides minimal transparency beyond the basic function.
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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. However, the second sentence partially repeats the first ('Returns fresh Variety headlines' vs 'Get Variety section headlines'), making it slightly redundant. Still, no fluff or unnecessary detail.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does. However, it does not describe the expected return structure (e.g., list of headline objects with title, link, date) or any limitations like batch size. Since there is no output schema, more detail on the response would improve completeness.
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% (the 'section' parameter is described as 'Variety vertical slug' and has a full enum). The description adds slight context by linking the parameter to 'section headlines', but does not go beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 that the tool retrieves section-specific headlines from Variety, with a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'Variety section headlines'. It adds context about the source ('one public vertical RSS feed') but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like variety_news or variety_article, relying on the section-scoped wording to imply 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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that full article retrieval would require variety_article or that general news might use variety_news. With many sibling headline tools, explicit routing would be valuable, but it is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.