get_devicesVagus Lab's comparison of six consumer VNS devices: editorial score out of 10, price, badge, pros and cons, and merchant return terms. Scores are editorial, authored from a ten-criterion weighted methodology, and are not consumer ratings. Vagus Lab earns affiliate commission on some purchases; the payload carries that disclosure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and goes beyond a basic read: it discloses that scores are editorial, based on a ten-criterion weighted methodology, not consumer ratings, and that affiliate commission disclosure is carried in the payload. This gives an agent accurate expectations about data provenance and output contents.
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 sentences, each adds value: first identifies the resource/fields, second explains scoring methodology, third discloses affiliate relationship. No filler or repetition.
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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the six-device comparison, lists the returned attributes, explains the editorial nature, and notes the disclosure carried in the payload. No required behavior is left unexplained.
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 and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add; the parameter-free baseline 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?
Description specifies the exact resource: 'Vagus Lab's comparison of six consumer VNS devices' and enumerates payload fields (score, price, badge, pros/cons, return terms). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_articles and search_research by focusing on scored device comparison.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives is included. However, the content description strongly implies use when a scored comparison of the six consumer VNS devices is needed, given the sibling tools are article/research-oriented.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.