Retrieve Vanguard editorial sections and categories with live feeds, enabling headline tools to list every available public section for content discovery.
Get Vanguard sections. Returns the public Vanguard editorial section inventory used by vanguardng-headlines: every category with a live feed.
| 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 provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only in nature ('Returns'), that no private/auth-required data is involved ('public'), and that a specific filter applies ('every category with a live feed'). It does not describe the output schema or field details, but for a zero-parameter retrieval tool this is reasonably transparent.
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 short and front-loaded. The first sentence, 'Get Vanguard sections,' is mildly redundant with the tool name, but the second sentence packs substantive detail: the inventory is public, tied to vanguardng-headlines, and filtered to live-feed categories. Overall it is concise and free of unnecessary content.
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-argument tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned and how the result relates to vanguardng-headlines. The main gap is that it does not explicitly state the response shape, such as whether the inventory is a list of section names, IDs, or both, but 'section inventory' makes the general result reasonably clear.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description cannot add parameter meaning because there are no parameters to document, and the schema coverage is complete.
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 identifies a specific action and resource: 'Get Vanguard sections' and 'public Vanguard editorial section inventory.' It adds the useful distinction that the inventory contains 'every category with a live feed,' which clarifies what the tool returns. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like vanguardng_headlines or vanguardng_article, so sibling differentiation is more implied than explicit.
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 phrase 'used by vanguardng-headlines' gives helpful context that this tool supplies the section inventory consumed by the headlines tool, and 'every category with a live feed' clarifies the returned subset. But it never states when to prefer this tool over sibling tools, nor does it give any when-not-to-use guidance. Usage conditions are only implied, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.