Retrieve VICE article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL. Returns structured JSON for public web articles, enabling data extraction and analysis.
Get VICE article content. Returns public VICE article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical VICE 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return includes metadata and body paragraphs, which is some context, but does not disclose any limitations, such as paywalls, rate limits, or whether the content is full or truncated. It also doesn't clarify if the URL must be public or if there are access restrictions.
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 a single sentence, efficient and front-loaded with the action and purpose. It avoids unnecessary fluff, making it easy to read.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the basic action but lacks details on the return structure (e.g., fields included in metadata), potential errors (e.g., invalid URL, article not found), or any limitations (e.g., paywalled content). An agent may need more context to handle edge cases.
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 schema coverage is 100%, so the sole parameter 'url' is documented. The description adds the phrase 'canonical article URL', which implies the URL must be canonical, adding slight value beyond the schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on what constitutes canonical or how it affects retrieval.
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 it retrieves VICE article content including metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL. It is specific enough to distinguish from other VICE tools like vice_headlines or vice_sections, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 does not provide when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, without indicating context, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, when to use vice_article vs vice_headlines or vice_news is not clarified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.