Fetch fresh headlines from a chosen VICE section, using its public RSS feed or listing page. Provide the section slug to retrieve current articles in JSON.
Get VICE section headlines. Returns fresh headlines from one VICE section, either its public RSS feed (News, Life, Tech, Music) or its public listing page for the remaining sections.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | VICE section slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool returns 'fresh headlines' and uses either RSS feed or listing page, which hints at behavior, but it doesn't disclose the exact structure of the returned data, potential freshness limitations, or whether it might be slower for listing pages. This is insufficient for full transparency.
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 concise, one sentence, and front-loads the main purpose. It includes the essential distinction about RSS vs listing pages efficiently. No wasted words.
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 no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It tells the agent what it does and the source, but could be more explicit about the output format or any fetch delays. Given the simplicity, it's adequate but not exceptional.
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 already fully describes the 'section' parameter with an enum list and a description. The description adds context about which sections use RSS vs listing pages, which is extra value, but doesn't need to repeat schema details. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 section headlines, and specifies that it handles one section at a time. It distinguishes between sections served via RSS feeds (News, Life, Tech, Music) and those via public listing pages for the remaining sections, which is specific and useful.
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 usage by requiring a 'section' parameter, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like vice_news or vice_sections. It provides context on the data source but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.