One Globe and Mail article's public metadata and full body paragraphs from a canonical article URL. Subscriber-only stories return a permission error instead of a truncated or fabricated body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Globe and Mail article URL |
| 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.
Input schema / properties / url / descriptionAdded value: +"Canonical Globe and Mail article URL"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds a genuinely useful failure-mode disclosure: subscriber-only stories return a permission error rather than a truncated or fabricated body. That tells the agent how to interpret an error and that no silent degradation occurs, which goes beyond the structured fields.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the error behavior. No filler; each sentence adds information.
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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the failure mode is covered. For a one-parameter fetch tool this is nearly complete; only the URL format specifics and any rate-limit/auth expectations are absent, which are minor.
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 100% and the single url parameter is already documented, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the URL must be canonical ('from a canonical article URL'), adding minor meaning, but offers no format or parsing detail beyond the schema.
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 resource (one Globe and Mail article) and scope (public metadata plus full body paragraphs) keyed to a canonical URL. It is clearly a single-article fetcher versus the sibling list tools, but it does not name those siblings or explicitly contrast itself with globeandmail_headlines/news.
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: the tool takes a canonical article URL, so the agent infers it is for retrieving a specific known article. There is no explicit when-to-use, no guidance to first obtain URLs via globeandmail_headlines or globeandmail_sections, and no stated alternatives.
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.