Extract i article content: get public metadata (headline, authors, dates, image) and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
Get i article content. Returns public i article metadata (headline, description, section, authors, publish/update times, lead image) and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical i 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 present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a read operation over 'public' content (implying no auth and non-destructive behavior) and specifies exactly what is returned. It does not address error handling, rate limits, or invalid-URL behavior, but for a simple getter these gaps are moderate, not severe.
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?
Two sentences with zero filler. The verb+resource statement is front-loaded, and the second sentence compactly enumerates the full return payload. Every word earns its place.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the full usage loop: the required input (canonical URL) and the complete output shape (metadata fields plus body paragraphs). It could clarify that 'i' refers to The i Paper and hint at how to source canonical URLs, but nothing essential is missing.
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 url parameter is already fully documented as 'Canonical i article URL.' The description reinforces the input with 'from a canonical article URL' but adds no format, normalization, or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('i article content') and enumerates the return payload in detail (headline, description, section, authors, publish/update times, lead image, body paragraphs). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling article tools by publication name ('i'), though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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 phrase 'from a canonical article URL' implies the usage context — retrieve content for an article whose URL the agent already has — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like inews_headlines/inews_news for discovering URLs, and no exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.