Fetch one page of a public Express Tribune author's story archive; provide the canonical author URL and optional page number to retrieve author details and article cards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| page | No |
| 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=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that results are public (no auth), paginated ('one page'), and consist of author details plus article cards, but does not describe page-size limits or pagination termination.
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 that names the resource first and the parameters second. Efficient, though the semicolon clause could be tightened.
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 needn't be described. For a simple two-parameter read tool the description is largely sufficient, but it omits where the canonical author URL comes from and any pagination bounds.
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 parameter meaning; it does add that 'url' should be the canonical author URL (not an article URL) and 'page' is an optional page number. That is meaningful but no format examples or constraints are given, leaving half the burden on the caller.
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 (Fetch) plus a precisely scoped resource: one page of a public Express Tribune author's story archive. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling expresstribune_article, expresstribune_headlines, expresstribune_news, and expresstribune_sections tools.
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 description implies usage (fetch an author's archive given a canonical URL) and notes the page number is optional, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and names no alternative for related lookups. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and the input hints.
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.
