Fetch recent Yardbarker headlines and short RSS summaries for a chosen section; provide the section slug from /yardbarker/sections to retrieve structured results.
Get headlines for a Yardbarker section. Returns recent Yardbarker headlines and short RSS summaries for one section. Call /yardbarker/sections for the complete current slug list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | Section slug returned by /yardbarker/sections |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload ("recent headlines and short RSS summaries"), which is useful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about pagination, result limits, freshness windows, or auth requirements.
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 action and followed by the return content and the prerequisite. Every sentence contributes, though the slug-list instruction repeats information already present in the schema.
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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the returned content, and how to get a valid slug. Only pagination/volume expectations are missing, which is a minor gap at this complexity.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as "Section slug returned by /yardbarker/sections." The description's pointer to the sections endpoint duplicates that schema text rather than adding new format or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ("Get headlines for a Yardbarker section") and scopes it to a single section, which cleanly separates it from sibling yardbarker_news, yardbarker_article, and yardbarker_sections. An agent can identify the tool without opening the 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?
Provides a clear prerequisite and routing hint: "Call /yardbarker/sections for the complete current slug list," telling the agent how to obtain a valid input. It does not, however, contrast itself against yardbarker_news or yardbarker_sections, so the when-not guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.