Fetch one Brisbane Times article's metadata and only the body paragraphs served by the single anonymous page request, preserving is_accessible_for_free, paywalled, and is_truncated flags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: a single anonymous page request limits the returned body to what that one request yields, and paywall/truncation state is surfaced via is_accessible_for_free, paywalled, and is_truncated. That tells the agent results may be paywalled or incomplete, which the annotations do not.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence opening with the verb and resource. It is slightly overloaded with the flag list and request-scoping clause, but no sentence is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return structure need not be re-explained, and the description focuses on scope and limitations instead. It is nearly complete for a one-URL fetch tool; the only missing piece is url format guidance.
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 coverage is 0% and the description never describes the url parameter's format or expected value. It only implies an article URL is the input via the page-request framing. For a single obvious URL param this is minimally adequate but does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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: fetches one Brisbane Times article's metadata plus its body paragraphs. The 'single anonymous page request' scoping distinguishes it from sibling feed-style tools (headlines, news, sections), though it does not name them explicitly.
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: you call it when you have a specific article URL and want its content. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative (e.g., brisbanetimes_headlines for discovery), so the agent must infer the routing.
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.
