Fetch Breitbart article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL. Get clean, structured content for reading or analysis.
Get Breitbart article content. Returns public Breitbart article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Breitbart article URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful details: the content is 'public' (implying no auth) and the response includes metadata and body paragraphs. It does not address failure modes, rate limits, or invalid/non-canonical URLs, but for a read-only 'Get' tool the core behavior is reasonably covered.
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, zero filler, and the action verb is front-loaded. Every clause earns its place, and key constraints ('public', 'canonical URL') are packed efficiently.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential contract: input (canonical URL) and output (metadata + body paragraphs). It lacks guidance on choosing among the many sibling article tools, but the low complexity means an agent has what it needs to call it correctly. Slightly more on failure/edge cases would be nice, hence 4 rather than 5.
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?
The single parameter is fully described in the schema ('Canonical Breitbart article URL'), giving a 100% coverage baseline of 3. The description reinforces 'canonical article URL' but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema. 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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Breitbart article content') and specifies the return shape (metadata and body paragraphs). The 'canonical article URL' scope distinguishes it from discovery/listing siblings like breitbart_headlines and breitbart_news. Clear and specific.
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 phrase 'from a canonical article URL' implies the tool is for fetching a known article rather than discovering one. However, it never names alternatives (e.g., breitbart_news, breitbart_headlines) or states when not to use it, leaving the selection logic to inference. This is implied usage at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.