Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

zdnet_sections

Lists ZDNet topic and content-type sections, returning each section's slug, display name, and feed URL. Use it to find valid section slugs before requesting headlines.

Instructions

Get ZDNet sections. Lists the ZDNet topic and content-type sections accepted by zdnet-headlines, such as artificial-intelligence, security, smartphones, vpn, how-to and deals. Each has a slug, a display name and a feed url. Takes no parameters.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.5

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it declares 'Takes no parameters' and describes the return shape (slug, name, url), implying a safe read-only listing. It doesn't mention caching, auth, or freshness of the section list, but for a static no-arg catalog this is minor.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose before examples and return fields. The opening 'Get ZDNet sections.' slightly duplicates the following 'Lists the ZDNet ... sections', a small redundancy, but the examples and return-field summary all earn their place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-arg, no-output-schema catalog tool, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool returns (slug, name, url), that it takes no input, and which sibling consumes the values. Nothing material is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description explicitly confirms 'Takes no parameters', matching the empty schema, and adds no misleading parameter hints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get ZDNet sections') and immediately scopes it: the topic/content-type sections accepted by `zdnet-headlines`. The examples (artificial-intelligence, security, vpn, how-to, deals) make the resource concrete and distinguish it from siblings like zdnet_headlines, zdnet_news, and zdnet_article.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly ties the tool to its consumer: these are the sections 'accepted by `zdnet-headlines`', which tells an agent this is the lookup step before calling that tool. It does not spell out when NOT to use it or name alternatives beyond zdnet-headlines, so it falls short of a full 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools