Fetch FOX Sports article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical foxsports.com story URL, returning clean JSON up to the article body container.
Get FOX Sports article content. Returns public FOX Sports article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical foxsports.com/stories// URL. Public body content stops at the article body container.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical FOX Sports story URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds real behavioral context ('public' content only, body extraction stops at the article body container), but does not address auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior for non-canonical 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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then return content, then the extraction limitation. Every sentence carries information; nothing is redundant.
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 single-param read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does, what it returns, input format, and the content boundary. Only auth/error-handling caveats are absent, which is a minor gap.
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% so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by specifying the expected URL shape (foxsports.com/stories/<section>/<slug>), which helps the agent construct a valid input rather than just passing an arbitrary string.
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 FOX Sports article content') and names exactly what is returned (metadata and body paragraphs). It implicitly separates itself from the foxsports_headlines/news/sections listing siblings but never names them, so it falls short of a 5.
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: an agent infers it should call this when it already has a canonical story URL. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to foxsports_headlines/news for discovering articles.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.