Retrieve public GQ article content, including metadata and body paragraphs, from a canonical story URL. Returns clean JSON, or a 403 error for subscriber-only stories.
Get GQ article content. Returns public GQ article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical story URL. A story GQ marks as subscriber-only returns a 403 permission error instead of partial text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical GQ story URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly notes that subscriber-only stories return a 403 error rather than partial text, which is a key behavioral trait. It also states the tool returns metadata and body paragraphs, though it doesn't cover other aspects like authentication or rate limits. The error condition is a valuable disclosure beyond the schema.
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?
The description is two sentences with zero filler. The main function is stated first, followed by the error condition. Every word contributes to understanding, and it is appropriately brief.
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, the description covers the core function and a notable edge case. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe the structure of the returned metadata or body paragraphs, leaving some ambiguity about the exact response format. Additional detail on the return structure would improve completeness.
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% with the url parameter described as 'Canonical GQ story URL'. The description echoes this phrase without adding new meaning or details about formatting, validation, or examples. Since schema already fully documents the parameter, the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool fetches GQ article content, specifying the resource (GQ) and the action (get). It explicitly mentions returning metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL, which is specific and distinguishes it from other article tools like nzherald_article or nyt_article. The inclusion of the subscriber-only 403 behavior adds specificity.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implicitly indicates it's for GQ articles, but there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools to prefer for other sources. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.