Retrieve the complete list of Vox editorial sections. Access public section inventory data for Vox in clean JSON format.
Get Vox sections. Returns the public Vox editorial section inventory.
| 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, the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It mentions the tool returns a public inventory, implying no authentication, but does not disclose potential response format, pagination, rate limits, or what 'sections' means in practice. This is minimal behavioral context.
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 every word contributes to clarity. This is an exemplary concise description.
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 simple getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not thorough. It could hint at how the returned sections might be used with related tools (e.g., vox_article) or specify that it returns a list, but it doesn't. Given the simplicity, it's acceptable but leaves a bit to inference.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers 100% of parameter semantics by default. The description adds no parameter-related information, but per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Vox sections') and adds a clarifying detail about returning the public editorial section inventory. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like nyt_sections or apnews_sections because it names the exact source (Vox).
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 context by being specific to Vox, but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over other sections tools or provide exclusions. For a zero-parameter tool, this is a minor gap, but a note like 'use for Vox; for other outlets use their corresponding sections tool' would have improved it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.