Retrieve IOL article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL. Returns structured JSON for news analysis and content extraction.
Get IOL article content. Returns public IOL article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical IOL 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 provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states that the content is public and describes the return shape as metadata and body paragraphs, indicating a read operation. However, it does not disclose error behavior, handling of non-canonical/malformed URLs, or any access constraints beyond 'public.'
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the resource, the output, and the input constraint in minimal words, and every phrase carries useful information.
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 read tool, the description is largely complete: it names the input, the source, and the return contents. It lacks explicit failure/edge-case guidance and there is no output schema, but the low complexity makes the current description sufficient for correct selection and basic invocation.
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 schema already fully documents the url parameter. The description's phrase 'from a canonical article URL' essentially repeats the schema's 'Canonical IOL article URL' without adding new semantic detail. Baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get IOL article content.' It then clarifies exactly what is returned (metadata and body paragraphs) and from what input (a canonical article URL), making it easy to distinguish from sibling article tools for other publishers.
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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving a specific IOL article by URL, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over related IOL tools like iol_headlines or iol_author, nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than directly spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.