List Washington Post sections with slug, name, and URL so you can choose valid section values for headline requests. Takes no parameters.
List Washington Post sections. Lists the Washington Post sections accepted by wapo-headlines. Each has a path slug such as politics or business/technology, a display name and a landing-page url. Use it to find valid section values. Takes no parameters.
| 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 burden, and it does disclose the return shape (path `slug`, display `name`, landing-page `url`) plus that it takes no parameters. It does not mention caching/pagination or whether the list is exhaustive, but for a static read-only enumeration that is a small gap.
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the headline-relationship. Slight redundancy between 'List Washington Post sections' and 'Lists the Washington Post sections accepted by wapo-headlines', but nothing wasteful enough to obscure the point.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and their example formats (`politics`, `business/technology`). Everything an agent needs to call it and consume its result is present.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description explicitly confirms 'Takes no parameters', removing any doubt that a `section` or filter argument is expected.
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 specific verb and resource (list Washington Post sections) and explicitly ties it to the sibling it feeds (`wapo-headlines`). The agent can tell it apart from wapo_news, wapo_article, and wapo_headlines without opening any schema.
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?
Gives an explicit when-to-use: 'Use it to find valid `section` values' for wapo-headlines. The selection condition against the alternative (call headlines directly with a known slug) is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.