List all non-empty Wccftech sections: categories, topics, and archives (Reviews, Videos, How To, Roundups). Use the returned slugs for headline retrieval.
Discover Wccftech sections. Lists all non-empty public category and topic sections, plus the Reviews, Videos, How To, and Roundups archives. Use a returned slug with wccftech-headlines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden and does disclose key behavioral scope: the tool lists only non-empty public sections and includes specific archive types. It strongly implies a read-only listing operation, though it does not explicitly state read-only status or return ordering.
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 tightly written sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by precise scope and a practical next-step instruction.
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 the low complexity, zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It states what gets listed, which sections are included, and that returned slugs are meant to be used with wccftech-headlines.
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 there is no parameter semantics burden. The baseline score for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description appropriately avoids unnecessary parameter discussion.
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 names the specific resource (Wccftech sections), the verb (Discover/Lists), and exactly what is included: non-empty public category/topic sections plus Reviews, Videos, How To, and Roundups archives. It also distinguishes this discovery tool from wccftech-headlines by naming that sibling as the consumer of returned slugs.
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?
It clearly tells the agent how to use the output by pointing to wccftech-headlines with a returned slug. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with other Wccftech tools beyond that next-step routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.