Retrieve public Financial Times article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL; subscriber-only articles are unavailable.
Get a Financial Times article's content. Returns one public Financial Times article's metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL. Subscriber-only articles that the FT serves as a subscription page are not available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical FT 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 full burden. It discloses that it returns one public article's metadata and body paragraphs and that subscriber-only articles are unavailable. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it doesn't cover error behavior or authentication.
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 with no filler. The core action and return value are front-loaded, and the key limitation is stated immediately after.
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 read tool, it covers input requirements, return content, and the main failure case (subscriber-only articles). No output schema exists, but the description gives enough shape of the response; minor gaps like invalid-URL behavior are not critical.
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 documents the single url parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the URL must be canonical and public, and that subscriber-only URLs won't work.
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 ('Get'), resource ('Financial Times article's content'), and return payload ('metadata and body paragraphs'), plus the input requirement ('canonical article URL'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ft_headlines or ft_search.
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?
Clearly implies use when you have a canonical FT article URL and need its content, and explicitly excludes subscriber-only articles. It doesn't name alternatives like ft_search or ft_headlines, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.