Retrieve WalesOnline headlines for a chosen section; photo galleries are omitted because they lack readable article bodies.
Get WalesOnline section headlines. Returns fresh headlines from one public WalesOnline section. Photo galleries are omitted because they have no readable article body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | WalesOnline 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 provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does real work: it discloses that results are fresh, that the endpoint serves only public sections, and that photo galleries are intentionally omitted because they lack a readable article body. The gallery exclusion is a genuine caveat an agent would not anticipate. The return format and any count limits remain undisclosed, but for a simple read tool this is solid coverage.
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 with the core purpose front-loaded and each clause earning its place — purpose, scope qualifiers, and a behavioral caveat. Minor redundancy ('headlines' appears in both sentences) and the slightly awkward construction of the second sentence prevent a 5, but there is no waste.
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 single input parameter is fully enumerated in the schema, so invocation is unambiguous. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the return structure is completely undocumented — an agent does not know what fields each headline contains or whether there is a result limit. For a simple read tool this is a modest but real gap.
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 documented as a 'WalesOnline section slug' with a full 38-value enum. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('WalesOnline section headlines'), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like walesonline_article, walesonline_author, and walesonline_sections. Qualifiers like 'fresh' and 'one public section' add useful scope precision beyond the name.
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 when to use it (when section headlines are needed) but never names alternatives or exclusions. An agent is not told to use walesonline_article for full article text or walesonline_sections to enumerate sections, so routing is left to inference from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.