Extract public Fast Company article content and metadata using a canonical URL. Obtain body paragraphs and structured data for research and analysis.
Get Fast Company article content. Returns public Fast Company article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL. It does not bypass authentication or access controls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Fast Company 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 full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (article metadata and body paragraphs) and a key constraint ('does not bypass authentication or access controls'), which warns the agent about paywalled/restricted content. It does not cover failure behavior, rate limits, or what happens for non-canonical/shortened URLs.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the return/constraint note follows immediately. Minor redundancy between 'Get Fast Company article content' and the next sentence keeps it from a 5.
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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what is fetched, what comes back, and the access-control limitation. It omits detail on the metadata fields and error/edge cases, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.
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% and the single 'url' parameter is already documented as a canonical Fast Company article URL. The description adds 'canonical article URL' but no format, validation, or example beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 Fast Company article content') and clarifies scope ('metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL'), which clearly separates it from siblings like fastcompany_news, fastcompany_headlines, and fastcompany_author. It stops short of naming or routing away from those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 only implied via the required 'canonical article URL', which signals this is a fetch-by-URL tool rather than a discovery tool. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of the sibling discovery tools an agent might reach for first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.