Fetch Collider article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL, returning structured JSON for public article content.
Get Collider article content. Returns public Collider article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Collider 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by stating the data is 'public' and specifying that the result contains metadata and body paragraphs, implying read-only access and no authentication. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but for a simple one-parameter fetch this is not a major gap.
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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, and the second clarifies the input and output, making the description easy to scan and immediately actionable.
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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough invocation context: the source, the input type, and the high-level response contents. It does not explain the exact metadata fields returned, but that is not necessary for selecting or calling the tool correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'url' parameter as a 'Canonical Collider article URL'. The description repeats that same concept without adding materially new parameter-level detail, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 names a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('Collider article content'), and return scope ('metadata and body paragraphs') from a canonical article URL. This makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like collider_author, collider_headlines, and other publishers' article tools.
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 primary usage scenario: call it when you already have a canonical Collider article URL and want the article's content. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as collider_headlines for discovering article URLs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.