Fetch fresh headlines from one Vanity Fair section's public listing page by passing a section slug. Use it to track Hollywood, movies, politics, style, or royals.
Get Vanity Fair section headlines. Returns fresh headlines from one Vanity Fair section's public listing page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | Vanity Fair section slug |
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 burden. It adds useful context by calling the headlines 'fresh' and mentioning the 'public listing page,' implying a public read operation. It does not disclose pagination, result limits, or output shape, but nothing contradicts the stated behavior.
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 with the primary verb and resource front-loaded. The second sentence adds scope context without any filler 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?
For a single-parameter tool with a fully covered enum schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what it will fetch. It does not enumerate the headline object's fields, but no output schema exists and the expected result is simple enough that this is a minor gap.
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%: the single `section` parameter is fully described in the schema with an enum of valid slugs. The tool description only reinforces that the section is the selector, so the baseline of 3 applies; it adds no new parameter-level information.
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 action ('Get'), the resource ('Vanity Fair section headlines'), and the scope ('one Vanity Fair section's public listing page'). It reads distinctly from article, author, and section sibling tools, though it does not name a specific alternative.
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 when to use it: when you need current headlines from a particular Vanity Fair section. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not contrast with siblings like vanityfair_news or vanityfair_sections.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.