Fetch and parse CBS Sports article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical cbssports.com//news/ URL.
Get CBS Sports article content. Returns public CBS Sports article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical cbssports.com//news/ URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical CBS Sports 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, and it does usefully disclose the operation's read-only nature, that content is public, and that the return includes metadata and body paragraphs. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but for a simple fetch tool this is reasonably transparent.
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?
The description is exactly two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main action and immediately states the output and input constraint, so 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 covers the purpose, the input format, the public access level, and the high-level return content. It could enumerate the metadata fields more explicitly, but nothing necessary for selecting and invoking the tool correctly is missing.
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 schema already covers the single 'url' parameter at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the expected canonical URL shape, 'cbssports.com/<sport>/news/<slug>', which makes the parameter semantics more concrete than the schema alone.
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', with a clear resource, 'CBS Sports article content', and states it returns metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cbssports_headlines or cbssports_sections by focusing on full article content rather than lists or sections.
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 the right usage: use this tool when you have a canonical cbssports.com/<sport>/news/<slug> URL and want article content. However, it never explicitly names alternatives such as cbssports_headlines or cbssports_news, nor does it state when not to use this tool, so routing guidance is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.