Fetch article content from a canonical Android Police URL, returning public metadata and readable body paragraphs.
Get Android Police article content. Returns public Android Police article metadata and readable body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Android Police article URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned shape (metadata plus readable body paragraphs) and that content is public, which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about failure behavior for non-canonical/invalid URLs, rate limits, or access requirements.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and with zero filler. The phrase 'article content' in sentence one is slightly redundant with the more precise 'metadata and readable body paragraphs' in sentence two, but overall it is tight.
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?
For a simple single-required-param tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece by describing the return contents. It is adequately complete, with only minor gaps around error handling and access constraints.
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?
Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents 'url' including the 'canonical' qualifier. The description repeats rather than extends that semantics (no format example, no note on what happens with non-canonical links), so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Uses a specific verb (Get) plus resource (Android Police article content) and even states what the return contains: article metadata and readable body paragraphs. It is distinct from sibling feed tools like androidpolice_headlines/news, though it never names an alternative to route the agent explicitly.
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 only implied: the requirement of a 'canonical article URL' signals this is the fetch-by-URL counterpart to the section/headline listing tools, but the description never says when to use this versus androidpolice_headlines or androidpolice_news. No exclusions or prerequisites beyond the URL are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.