Retrieve Vanguard article content by providing a canonical URL. Get article metadata and full body paragraphs without a paywall, ready for parsing.
Get Vanguard article content. Returns public Vanguard article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL. Vanguard has no paywall.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Vanguard article URL |
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. It discloses the lack of a paywall and the return content, but does not mention rate limits, required access, or any side effects. It is a read operation, but that is not explicitly stated.
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 sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the extra info about 'no paywall' is a useful, concise addition.
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 single-parameter fetch tool, the description covers the essential behavior: what is fetched and from where. While there is no output schema, the description indicates the return includes metadata and body paragraphs, which is sufficient. Minor gaps like pagination are not critical for a simple article fetcher.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the qualifier 'canonical' to the URL parameter, clarifying the expected format. This is minor but valuable beyond the schema.
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 verb 'Get', the resource 'Vanguard article content', and specifies it returns 'metadata and body paragraphs' from a canonical URL. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling article tools by source and purpose.
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 indicates the requirement for a 'canonical article URL', implying when to use it (when you have such a URL). However, it does not contrast with sibling article tools or state when not to use this tool, leaving selection to the agent's inference based on the source.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.