get_vr_articleFetch the complete VR.org original article using its slug, returning metadata, canonical URL, and body HTML for reading or analysis.
Returns the full content of a single VR.org original article by its slug: metadata (title, author, date, category, tags, snippet), the canonical URL, and the article body HTML.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The article slug, e.g. 'why-vr-is-the-perfect-horror-machine'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.3Input schema / properties / slug / maxLengthAdded value: +200v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description goes further by describing the return shape — metadata fields, canonical URL, and body HTML — which matters because there is no output schema. It omits error behavior for a bad slug and any rate/format caveats, keeping it short of a 5.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the returned payload. No filler, no redundancy with the title.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so concretely (metadata, canonical URL, body HTML). It is nearly complete for a simple single-resource read; only edge-case behavior on a nonexistent slug is unaddressed.
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 description coverage is 100% and the schema itself supplies an example slug, so the single parameter is fully documented structurally. The description adds no slug format or validity guidance beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: returns the full content of a single VR.org original article, keyed by slug. It enumerates exactly what comes back (metadata, canonical URL, body HTML). It does not explicitly contrast itself with list_vr_originals or search_vr_news, though the singular-by-slug framing implies the distinction.
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?
Usage is implied by 'by its slug' — the agent knows it needs a slug in hand to call this. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no alternative named for retrieving VR.org content (e.g. list_vr_originals for browsing, search_vr_news for discovery).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.