Fetch Gizmodo article content from a canonical URL to return metadata and full body paragraphs in clean JSON.
Get Gizmodo article content. Returns public Gizmodo article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL. Gizmodo articles are free to read, so the full body is returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Gizmodo 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 contributes one genuinely useful behavioral fact—Gizmodo articles are free to read, so the full body is returned—which preempts paywall/truncation concerns. However, it stays silent on error behavior, redirects, non-canonical URLs, and rate limits; adequate but not rich.
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 totaling roughly 28 words, with zero filler. The core action, return shape, and behavioral note each earn their place, and the most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.
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 fetch tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what to pass (canonical URL), what is returned (metadata and body paragraphs), and why the full body appears (free to read). Minor omissions—behavior with non-canonical URLs and the exact metadata shape—are non-critical for a simple read operation.
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% (the single url parameter is documented as 'Canonical Gizmodo article URL'), so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates the same constraint ('from a canonical article URL') without adding format examples, URL-shape guidance, or edge-case handling. No added semantic value beyond the schema.
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 Gizmodo article content') and specifies the return shape (metadata and body paragraphs). The 'Gizmodo' qualifier separates it from the many other publisher-article siblings, and the resource noun ('article' vs author/headlines/news/sections) makes its role in the family clear.
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—supply a canonical article URL—but never names alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions. Given the large sibling set (gizmodo_headlines, gizmodo_news, gizmodo_author, plus other publishers' article tools), explicit routing guidance would help but is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.