Retrieve article metadata and body paragraphs from a Hollywood Reporter canonical URL, returned as structured JSON.
Get The Hollywood Reporter article content. Returns public The Hollywood Reporter article metadata (title, author(s), published/updated dates, section, lead image) and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Hollywood Reporter article 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. It discloses that only public articles are returned and that a canonical URL is expected, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention error behavior, rate limits, or what happens with non-canonical or inaccessible URLs. For a simple read-only getter this is 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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action ('Get article content') and then lists the return components. Every phrase earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states the input requirement and the full expected return content. It does not cover edge cases like invalid URLs or error responses, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'canonical article URL' adds no meaning beyond the schema's own 'Canonical Hollywood Reporter article URL'. The description does not introduce any additional parameter semantics.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('The Hollywood Reporter article content'), and enumerates exactly what is returned: metadata (title, authors, dates, section, lead image) and body paragraphs. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like hollywoodreporter_headlines or hollywoodreporter_sections, which serve different purposes.
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 makes the usage context clear: it operates on a canonical article URL and returns article content. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling tool names (headlines, sections, author) make the appropriate choice obvious. No misleading guidance is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.