Retrieve the public WalesOnline editorial section inventory, providing the section list used to fetch WalesOnline headlines.
Get WalesOnline sections. Returns the public WalesOnline editorial section inventory used by walesonline-headlines.
| 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 exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns public data and is a read-style 'Get' operation, which is useful, but it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or output shape. For a zero-parameter getter this is adequate but minimal.
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 the main action front-loaded and the second sentence adding a relevant consumer context. No filler or redundancy.
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 inventory tool with no output schema, the description names the content (public WalesOnline editorial sections) and its relationship to walesonline-headlines. It doesn't specify the return structure, but the description is sufficient for an agent to decide to call it and inspect the result.
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?
There are no parameters, and the empty schema is fully self-describing. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed; baseline 4 for zero-param tools.
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?
States a clear verb and resource ('Get WalesOnline sections') and identifies the output as the public editorial section inventory. It distinguishes itself from walesonline_article/headlines/news by framing the result as the inventory consumed by walesonline-headlines, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools.
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 phrase 'used by walesonline-headlines' implies this tool is the section source for headline workflows, but it never states when to choose this over sibling tools or when not to use it. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative routing, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.