Retrieve the public New York Magazine section inventory as structured JSON for building navigation, feeds, or category-based content tools.
Get New York Magazine sections. Returns the public New York Magazine section inventory.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it handles the core behavior: 'Get' and 'Returns' signal a read-only operation, while 'public' signals that no private access is involved. It does not discuss response format or errors, but for a zero-parameter inventory fetch the main behavioral context is covered.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return payload description. There is no filler or unnecessary detail that detracts from the definition.
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 no-input tool this is nearly complete: it says what is fetched, from which publication, and that the data is public. The main gap is that the shape of the 'section inventory' is not described, and there is no output schema to fill that in.
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, so the baseline is 4 and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The schema already documents the empty parameter set.
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 uses a concrete verb and resource: 'Get New York Magazine sections' and further clarifies with 'Returns the public New York Magazine section inventory.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like nymag_article, nymag_headlines, nymag_news, and newyorker_sections.
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 gives clear context by stating exactly what is returned: a public section inventory for New York Magazine. An agent can infer this is the sections-listing tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, 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.