Retrieve E! News article content by submitting a canonical URL. Returns article metadata, byline, and body paragraphs as clean JSON.
Get E! News article content. Returns public E! News article metadata, byline and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical E! News article URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The word 'Get' and the term 'public' reasonably imply a read-only, no-auth operation, but the description does not explicitly state read-only behavior, failure modes, or access constraints.
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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action, then immediately gives the return payload and input requirement, making it easy for an agent to parse.
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 public article fetcher with no output schema, the description supplies the essential input condition and a useful preview of the returned content. It is only slightly incomplete in not covering behavior on invalid URLs or unavailable articles.
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 describes the single url parameter at 100% coverage as a 'Canonical E! News article URL.' The description restates that constraint but adds no format details, normalization guidance, or examples, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get E! News article content') and enumerates the exact returned fields: metadata, byline, and body paragraphs. This clearly separates it from sibling eonline_* tools that deal with headlines, news 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 phrase 'from a canonical article URL' implies the triggering condition, and the E! News scope distinguishes it from other publishers' article tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like eonline_headlines, eonline_news, or eonline_sections for list-style needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.