Fetch Entertainment Weekly article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL to return clean structured content.
Get Entertainment Weekly article content. Returns public Entertainment Weekly article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Entertainment Weekly 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 conveys that the tool accesses public content only and requires a canonical URL. It does not disclose potential limitations such as authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior on invalid URLs. While it adds some context, it lacks depth regarding edge cases or error handling.
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 sentences deliver the purpose and key behavioral constraints with no redundancy. The core function is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to scan quickly.
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?
The description covers the essentials: input type, source (public Entertainment Weekly), and output (metadata and body paragraphs). It does not mention pagination or detailed return structure, but for a single-parameter retrieval tool, it provides sufficient context for accurate invocation. Lacks explicit error handling guidance, though that is not critical here.
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 parameter (url) with a clear description. The tool description only reiterates 'canonical article URL' without adding new meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.
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 clearly states the action (Get), the resource (Entertainment Weekly article content), and specifies the output (metadata and body paragraphs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ew_headlines or ew_author by focusing on full article retrieval. It also clarifies the input requirement (canonical article URL), making its purpose unambiguous.
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 usage for retrieving full article content but does not explicitly declare when to use this tool versus alternatives like ew_headlines or ew_news. There are no mentions of 'use this when you need full article details' or exclusions. The context is clear but not explicit, so it earns a mid-range score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.