Retrieve The Independent article content and body paragraphs from a canonical URL, providing clean metadata and text for analysis or republishing.
Get The Independent article content. Returns public The Independent article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical The Independent 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 behavioral burden. It discloses that the content is 'public' and that the tool returns metadata and body paragraphs, implying a read-only fetch with no auth requirements. It does not address error behavior, rate limits, non-canonical URLs, or whether the response includes full vs. partial content.
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 short, information-dense sentences. The action is front-loaded, and the return shape follows immediately. There is no filler, redundancy beyond a mild repetition of 'The Independent', or unnecessary detail.
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 public fetch tool, the description adequately covers the source, input type, and output basics. Since there is no output schema, naming 'metadata and body paragraphs' is useful, though 'metadata' is vague and no error or non-canonical URL handling is mentioned. Overall it is sufficient but not exhaustive.
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 parameter is already fully documented as 'Canonical The Independent article URL'. The description adds no new meaning beyond repeating the canonical-URL constraint, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('The Independent article content'), and the return scope ('metadata and body paragraphs'). It is unambiguous and clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like independent_headlines, independent_news, or independent_author because it is explicitly about full article content from a canonical URL.
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 the intended use: an agent should call this when it has a canonical article URL and wants The Independent's article body and metadata. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as independent_headlines or independent_sections, leaving some inference required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.