Fetch current article headlines from a Wccftech topic, category, or editorial archive by passing its section slug.
Get Wccftech section headlines. Returns current articles from one Wccftech topic, category, or editorial archive. Pass a slug from wccftech-sections, such as topic:hardware, category:news, or archive:videos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | Wccftech section slug returned by /wccftech/sections |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it discloses that this returns current articles (a read-style operation) and scopes results to one section. It doesn't mention pagination, result volume, auth requirements, or ordering, so behavioral disclosure is partial.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by return scope and the slug requirement. Little waste, though the final sentence's examples could arguably be trimmed.
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 single-param, read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, return nature, and the parameter's source and format. Missing details are minor (pagination, ordering), so it is nearly complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value by giving concrete slug examples (topic:hardware, category:news, archive:videos) that reveal the expected format/families beyond the schema's plain string type.
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 (Get) plus resource (Wccftech section headlines) and clarifies it returns current articles from one topic, category, or editorial archive. It references the sibling tool wccftech-sections as the slug source, which aids disambiguation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself against wccftech_news or wccftech_article.
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?
Usage is implied: it tells the agent to pass a slug from wccftech-sections, which establishes a prerequisite workflow. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance relative to the closely named siblings like wccftech_news or wccftech_article.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.