Retrieve ZDNet's public topic and content-type taxonomy for the headlines endpoint.
Get ZDNet sections. Returns the public ZDNet topic and content-type taxonomy accepted 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states that the tool returns public taxonomy, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose details such as the format (list, map), whether the taxonomy is static, or any potential side effects. The description is adequate but minimal.
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 concise sentences that front-load the main action and then clarify the return value. There is no redundant information, and every sentence earns its place.
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 parameterless tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides sufficient context: what it returns and its connection to headlines. It does not specify the exact output structure, but for a simple taxonomy list, this is likely adequate.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by describing the output's purpose and relationship to the headlines endpoint. According to guidelines, the baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description enriches meaning beyond the empty schema.
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 action ('Get ZDNet sections') and specifies the resource. It further clarifies that it returns the taxonomy accepted by the headlines endpoint, distinguishing it from other article or author tools. This is specific and unambiguous.
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 implies usage by mentioning the headlines endpoint, suggesting it is a prerequisite for querying headlines with valid section values. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it exclude other contexts. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.