Retrieve the public XDA RSS section inventory to identify available categories for fetching headlines. Returns clean JSON with section names and identifiers.
Get XDA RSS sections. Returns the public XDA RSS section inventory used by the headlines endpoint.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the inventory is 'public' (suggesting no auth) and that it is a read operation via 'Get.' Yet it does not describe the return structure, caching, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral aspects unaddressed.
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 verb-object pair is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds valuable context about the return value. It is economical and well-structured.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it returns and its relationship to the headlines endpoint. It could be slightly more explicit about the format of the section inventory, but it is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it.
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 schema fully documents the input. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is appropriate. For a zero-parameter tool, the baseline is 4.
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 starts with a specific verb and resource—'Get XDA RSS sections'—and further clarifies it returns the public XDA RSS section inventory. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling sections tools (e.g., nzherald_sections, nyt_sections) by naming XDA, and also relates it to the headlines endpoint.
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 statement that the inventory is 'used by the headlines endpoint' gives clear context for when to fetch it, implying a prerequisite step. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name when not to use it, such as 'for other publications use their own sections tool.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.