List valid New York Magazine section slugs, display names, and URLs for use with nymag-headlines.
Get New York Magazine sections. Lists the New York Magazine section slugs accepted by nymag-headlines, such as intelligencer, thecut, vulture and grub-street. Each entry has its stable slug, display name and section url.
| 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 carries the burden, and it does disclose the return shape (stable `slug`, display `name`, `url`). It does not state that the call is read-only, whether authentication is needed, or how complete/exhaustive the list is; for a simple static reference endpoint this is adequate but not rich.
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 purpose, then the routing value, then the return shape. Every sentence carries information and none is redundant.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates by naming the three returned fields and giving example slugs, which is what an agent needs to call and consume the result. Only exhaustiveness/completeness of the list is unstated.
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 takes zero parameters, so the schema-baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter guidance because there is nothing to configure.
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 New York Magazine sections') and additionally frames the resource as the enumeration of slugs consumed by `nymag-headlines`. This distinguishes it clearly from the neighbouring nymag_headlines/nymag_article tools without opening a 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?
The clause 'section slugs accepted by `nymag-headlines`' implicitly tells the agent when to call this tool (to resolve a valid section value for the headlines tool) and gives concrete example slugs. There is no explicit when-not or statement of alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.