Retrieve public CBR article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL, turning web content into structured JSON for analysis and integration.
Get CBR article content. Returns public CBR article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical CBR 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 discloses that the tool returns public article metadata and body paragraphs, which implies a read-only, unauthenticated operation. However, it does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or other behavioral details, though the read-only nature is strongly implied.
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?
A single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get CBR article content') and then specifies the output and input. There is no verbose or redundant wording.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns (metadata and body paragraphs), and the input requirement. It does not explain output structure in detail, but that is likely acceptable for a straightforward retrieval tool.
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 fully described as 'Canonical CBR article URL'. The description adds little beyond restating this, providing no extra detail about URL format or constraints, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool fetches CBR article content, specifying it returns metadata and body paragraphs from a URL. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cbr_headlines or cbr_sections, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cbr_headlines or cbr_news. The description only implies the need for a canonical article URL but does not state when this tool is the appropriate choice or exclude other use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.