Extract GamesRadar+ article metadata and body text from a canonical URL. Use for content analysis or display.
Get GamesRadar+ article content. Returns public GamesRadar+ article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical GamesRadar+ 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 full burden. It states 'public' content, implying no authentication needed, and specifies output types (metadata and body paragraphs). However, it does not disclose error behavior, rate limits, redirect handling, or output formatting details. For a content retrieval tool with no annotation safety hints, this is insufficient.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to clarifying the purpose and scope, making it efficient for an agent to parse 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?
For a simple single-parameter tool without an output schema, the description gives the essential purpose and return type. However, it could specify what 'metadata' includes (e.g., title, author, date) or mention potential errors, which would make it more complete for an agent deciding to call it.
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% and the parameter description 'Canonical GamesRadar+ article URL' is clear. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get GamesRadar+ article content') and clarifies the return type (metadata and body paragraphs). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling article tools by explicitly naming GamesRadar+ and specifying that it fetches content from a canonical URL, not headlines or news listings.
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 when you have a canonical GamesRadar+ article URL, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like gamesradar_headlines or gamesradar_news. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or how to obtain a canonical URL, leaving some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.