get_articleOne article in full, with approved supporting photo descriptions and section placements, by the slug list_articles returned. Cite it by its URL. Photo captions describe context; they do not verify claims beyond the article.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The article slug from list_articles. | |
| offset | No | Character offset. Follow next_offset until null to read the entire article. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context about the returned content (photo descriptions, section placements) and an epistemic caveat that captions do not verify claims. It does not mention pagination behavior, which is left to the schema.
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?
Three compact sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then how to use it. Each sentence carries distinct information (payload, citation, caption caveat) with no repetition.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does state the article body plus supporting photo/section data, with pagination handled by the offset field description. It still leaves the exact response structure implicit, keeping it short of fully complete.
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%, so both slug and offset are already documented, including the next_offset pagination idiom. The description's 'by the slug list_articles returned' merely echoes the slug field description and adds no new format or constraint detail.
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 ('One article in full') plus the extra payload it returns (photo descriptions and section placements), and ties itself to the list_articles sibling that produces the slug. An agent can distinguish it from list_articles and ask_echo without opening a schema.
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?
Gives clear operating context: obtain the slug from list_articles and cite the article by URL, with a caution that captions are context rather than verification. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool is named, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.