website-search

get_article

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the full content of a specific article from Lenny Zeltser's Website by URL path. Security articles on malware analysis, incident response, and security leadership. Returns title, date, topics, summary, and full body text.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Article URL path or full URL (e.g., '/about', '/article-slug', or the full URL printed by search results)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`body`	No
`date`	No
`site`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`topics`	No
`abstract`	No

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent nature. The description adds transparency by detailing the exact output fields (title, date, topics, summary, full body text), which supplements the annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the action and then provide relevant details without extraneous fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple single-parameter read tool, the description sufficiently covers purpose, return content, and article topics. It omits potential error scenarios, but that is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the availability of the output schema (not shown here).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description for 'url' already provides examples and clarifies that both paths and full URLs are accepted (100% coverage). The tool description adds no further parameter context, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves full article content from Lenny Zeltser's website via URL path, and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying the return of title, date, topics, summary, and full body text.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for fetching full article text but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when metadata alone is sufficient). No direct comparison or conditional guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All website-search tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a distinct domain prefix (assessment, cti, ir, malware, vuln, product) that makes its purpose clear, and overlapping tools like get_template and get_brief_template are explicitly described as standalone variants. However, the large number of similarly structured tools (get_guidelines, load_context, get_frameworks) across six domains could still cause an agent to reach for the wrong domain's tool without close attention.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a highly consistent snake_case pattern: domain_get_* (e.g., ir_get_template, cti_get_guidelines), domain_load_context, domain_review_report, and domain_get_cross_server_routes. The few exceptions like product_compare_context and search_zeltser still match the general verb-first or domain-first style, so the overall naming scheme is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

With 53 tools, the server is far too large for its stated purpose of 'website search.' The vast majority of tools are not about search but rather about writing guidelines, templates, and scoring rubrics for multiple report domains (assessment, CTI, IR, malware, vuln, product) plus an AI defense matrix. The count is inflated by repeating the same set of ~7 tools for six different domains, making it feel bloated and hard to navigate.

Completeness4/5

For the broad coaching/report-writing scope, coverage is thorough: every domain has a template, guidelines, context loader, review criteria, and frameworks, plus generic writing guidance and rating tools. The actual search capability is minimal (search_zeltser, get_article, get_index_info) but adequate for the core task; a notable gap is the lack of a tool to list or browse all articles, which would make discovery easier.

Resources

Need Help?