get_articleFetch the full text of one issoh.co.jp article by URL or by id. Accepts URLs such as https://www.issoh.co.jp/column/details/16170/ or https://www.issoh.co.jp/tech/details/16216/. HTML is stripped and the body is truncated at 15000 characters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | 記事ID（url を使う場合は不要） | |
| url | No | 記事URL（id を使う場合は不要） | |
| post_type | No | id 指定のときの投稿タイプ。url 指定なら不要 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that HTML is stripped and output is truncated at 15000 characters. Lacks mention of potential network latency or error behavior, but since no annotations exist, these details are adequately covered.
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 concise sentences with no redundancy. Purpose and key constraints are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool, description covers how to call it, what it returns, and output formatting. Missing details like error handling are not critical for this read-only operation, and no output schema is provided, so the described behavior is sufficient.
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 descriptions are in Japanese; the tool description provides English equivalents and clarifies usage with examples (URLs and IDs). Adds value beyond the schema by making parameters more accessible and confirming mutual exclusivity implicitly.
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?
Description clearly states the tool fetches full text of a single article from issoh.co.jp, distinguishing it from search tools by specifying 'full text' and 'one article'.
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?
Explicitly mentions acceptance by URL or ID, and provides URL examples. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling search tools, though the naming implies the difference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.