Fetch a FUSSBALL.DE news article by numeric article ID to retrieve its title, category, publication date/time, lead image, caption, and body text.
Get a FUSSBALL.DE news article. Returns one FUSSBALL.DE news article: title, category, publication date and time, lead image and caption, and the body paragraphs as plain text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| article_id | Yes | Numeric article id from fussballde-news |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.16Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return shape: title, category, publication date/time, lead image and caption, and body paragraphs as plain text. That plain-text body detail is valuable and not derivable from the schema. It omits error behavior for invalid ids but the read-only nature is clear from 'Get' and 'Returns'.
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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the concrete return payload. There is mild redundancy between 'Get a... article' and 'Returns one... article' but nothing wasted.
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 lookup with no output schema, the description covers both what it fetches and what comes back, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Missing only discovery guidance for obtaining the article_id.
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 article_id parameter already documents its type and origin ('Numeric article id from fussballde-news'). The description adds nothing further about format or how to obtain the id, so 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 a FUSSBALL.DE news article') and clarifies it returns exactly one article. It doesn't explicitly name siblings like fussballde_news or fussballde_news_search, so the agent must infer this is the single-article-by-id fetcher rather than the listing/search tool.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. The description never tells the agent to use fussballde_news_search first to find an article_id, nor directs it away from sibling news tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.