list_articlesIndex of every published Vagus Lab article with its URL, category, and evidence grade. Fetch any article URL with the header 'Accept: text/markdown' to read the full text as clean markdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum articles to return | |
| category | No | Filter by category slug, for example 'devices' or 'sleep-energy' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns an index and that URLs can be fetched with a custom header, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, authorization requirements, or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, leaving some gaps.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose (listing articles) followed by a useful fetching tip. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description adequately covers the returned fields and provides a usage hint. It lacks details on defaults or ordering, but these are minor for a list endpoint, making it sufficiently complete for an agent.
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% as both limit and category have descriptions. The tool description does not add additional semantic value beyond restating that category is used for filtering, so it meets the baseline without enhancing parameter understanding.
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 tool's function: it returns an index of every published Vagus Lab article with specific fields (URL, category, evidence grade). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_devices and search_research, which serve different purposes.
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 context (for listing all articles) and adds a practical tip on how to read full text via a specific header. However, it does not explicitly contrast with search_research or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.