Retrieve Business Insider article content by providing a canonical URL, returning article metadata and body paragraphs in clean JSON.
Get Business Insider article content. Returns public Business Insider article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Business Insider article URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds value by specifying that only "public" content is returned and summarizing the output (metadata and body paragraphs), but it does not mention failure modes, paywall behavior, or what makes a URL "canonical."
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 with no wasted words; the action is front-loaded ("Get...") and the input requirement and return type are stated efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.
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 tool with no output schema, the description states the required input and gives a high-level but useful summary of the return payload (metadata and body paragraphs). It could detail the metadata fields or error conditions, but it is sufficient for basic 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 description coverage is 100%, with the url parameter already described as "Canonical Business Insider article URL." The description repeats this phrase but adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ("Get") and resource ("Business Insider article content"), and states what is returned (metadata and body paragraphs). It is clear this is a fetch-by-URL tool, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools like businessinsider_headlines or businessinsider_news, so the distinction is implicit rather than explicit.
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 through the input requirement ("from a canonical article URL"), signaling that the caller must already have a URL. However, it provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or references to alternatives such as headline or news tools for discovering URLs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.