Share-ready package for a published, cited Asha brief/story. Returns found=false when no final share pack is available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Search query, slug, or generated-article id. Omit for latest published pack. | |
| url | No | Exact asha.news /article/{slug}, /story/{id}, or /s/{key} URL; resolves to that content only (matched_by=url) or found=false — never a different article. Takes precedence over q. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / urlAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Exact asha.news /article/{slug}, /story/{id}, or /s/{key} URL; resolves to that content only (matched_by=url) or found=false — never a different article. Takes precedence over q.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the found=false behavior, which is helpful, but does not mention other behavioral aspects such as whether it's read-only, any rate limits, or what the package contains. Additional context on side effects or response structure is missing.
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?
The description is two concise sentences that directly state the purpose and a key behavioral outcome. No filler or repetition, with information front-loaded and easy to parse.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the response contains. It only mentions found=false for absence and 'share-ready package' without detailing its structure (e.g., fields, URL, payload). This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent on what to expect from a successful call.
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% with detailed descriptions for both q and url, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific insight beyond what the schema already provides, such as example formats or precedence rules, which are already in 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?
The description clearly states the tool provides a share-ready package for a published, cited Asha brief/story, with a specific resource and action. It distinguishes from generic search or feed tools by focusing on share-readiness, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like asha_share_payload or asha_mint_share_link.
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 via the parameters (q for search, url for exact match) and notes found=false when unavailable, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. Context is clear but exclusions or alternative recommendations are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.