Retrieve metadata and text paragraphs from a canonical Daily Kos staff /news/ article URL. Community stories and photographer-owned images are excluded.
Get a Daily Kos staff article. Returns metadata and text paragraphs from a canonical staff-authored Daily Kos /news/ story. Community stories and photographer-owned images are not included.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Daily Kos staff /news/ article URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns metadata and text paragraphs and excludes community stories and photographer-owned images, but it does not clarify the structure of the returned metadata, error behavior, or other operational details.
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 three tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action and then adding return content and exclusion scope. 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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, return contents, and content exclusions. It could be slightly more complete by specifying what "metadata" includes, but it gives enough for 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 coverage is 100%, and the single url parameter is already documented as a canonical Daily Kos staff /news/ article URL. The description reinforces the staff-authored constraint and exclusions, but adds no URL syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.
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+resource ("Get a Daily Kos staff article") and scopes it to canonical staff-authored /news/ stories. It explicitly excludes community stories and photographer-owned images, making it distinguishable from feed/list-oriented sibling tools like dailykos_headlines and dailykos_news.
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?
It gives clear context for when to use it: canonical staff-authored /news/ story URLs, and states what is not included (community stories, photographer-owned images). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for those excluded cases, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.