Extract a Daily Kos staff article's title, author, publication time, and readable body paragraphs from its canonical /news/ URL; community stories and images are excluded.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral scope that annotations cannot: extraction works only on canonical /news/ URLs, and community stories and images are deliberately omitted from the result.
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 with zero waste; the primary action and return contents come first, and the scope restriction trails as a qualifier.
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 values need not be described, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers purpose, extraction scope, and exclusions, leaving only minor gaps around URL format and failure behavior for this simple single-parameter reader.
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%, so the description must carry the url parameter, and it partially does by specifying a 'canonical /news/ URL' constraint. However, it gives no format example or hint about what constitutes a canonical URL, leaving the agent to guess.
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 (extract) and resource (Daily Kos staff article) and enumerates exactly what is returned: title, author, publication time, and body paragraphs. It also distinguishes staff articles from community stories, which no sibling name conveys.
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?
The exclusion of community stories and images implies which content is in scope and which article URLs are valid, but it never names the alternative siblings (dailykos_news, dailykos_headlines, dailykos_sections) or states when to pick this tool over them. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.
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.
