Fetch Denver Post article metadata and paragraphs from a public URL. Subscriber-only pages return preview only; access controls are not bypassed.
Get a Denver Post article. Returns article metadata and paragraphs present on the public page. Subscriber-only pages may expose only an anonymous preview; this service does not bypass access controls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Denver Post 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 discloses what is returned (article metadata and paragraphs on the public page) and a key limitation (subscriber-only pages may show only an anonymous preview, no access-control bypass), which is useful context beyond the schema.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then return contents, then the paywall caveat. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.
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 and no annotations, the description covers purpose, return contents, and a key limitation. It could mention error cases or auth needs, but the core information an agent needs to call it correctly is present.
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%, so the schema already documents the single url parameter as 'Canonical Denver Post article URL'. The description adds no further meaning to that parameter, matching the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Get a Denver Post article.' It is clear this retrieves a single article, distinguishing it implicitly from denverpost_headlines or denverpost_news, but it does not explicitly name those alternatives or state the boundary.
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?
Usage is implied by the purpose and the required URL parameter, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to sibling tools like denverpost_news or denverpost_headlines. An agent can infer it is for fetching a known article, but no routing advice is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.