List all Washington Post sections with path slugs, display names, and landing-page URLs to identify valid section identifiers for headline queries.
List Washington Post sections. Lists every Washington Post section accepted by /wapo/headlines, with its path 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. It discloses that the tool is a listing operation, names exactly what it returns (path slug, display name, landing-page URL), and implies a read-only behavior with 'List'. For a zero-parameter catalog tool, this is sufficient behavioral disclosure; no side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits are mentioned, but none are expected for this type of 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 with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential output details and the relation to /wapo/headlines. Every word adds value, and the key point (what it lists) is front-loaded.
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?
Given a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned (path slug, display name, landing-page URL), that it covers all sections, and how the tool relates to /wapo/headlines. An agent has enough information to call this tool correctly and know what to expect.
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 the baseline per the rubric is 4. There are no parameters to document, and the description adds no parameter-specific semantics because none are needed.
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 verb 'List', the resource 'Washington Post sections', and the specific output fields (path slug, display name, landing-page URL). It also explicitly ties the list to what is accepted by /wapo/headlines, distinguishing it from sibling section-list tools like nyt_sections or newyorker_sections.
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 indicates these sections are 'accepted by /wapo/headlines', providing a concrete usage context: use this tool to obtain valid section identifiers for the wapo_headlines tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the reference to /wapo/headlines gives clear guidance on when this tool is relevant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.