fetchFetches the full text of one Pollar article by the id returned from the search tool. Returns {id, title, text, url, metadata} with the article's summary and source citations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | An id returned by the search tool |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| url | Yes | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| metadata | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "metadata": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "modifiedAt": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "publishedAt": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "sources": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "source": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "format": "uri",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "title",
+ "url",
+ "source"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "publishedAt",
+ "modifiedAt",
+ "sources"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "text": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "format": "uri",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "title",
+ "text",
+ "url",
+ "metadata"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation indicates a read-only operation, consistent with fetching. The description adds value by detailing the return fields including summary and citations, beyond the annotation.
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 sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose and immediately followed by return format.
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?
Given the simple tool with one parameter and an explicit output schema via description, the definition is complete and sufficient for correct invocation.
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 covers 100% of parameter descriptions; the description reinforces that the id is from search but does not add new details 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?
The description clearly states the tool fetches the full text of a Pollar article using an id from the search tool, distinguishing it from sibling tools that fetch other types of content.
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 specifies that the id comes from the search tool, guiding the agent to use this tool after a search. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is clear.
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.