Fetch public metadata from a The Japan Times article URL and flag paywalled pages, omitting hidden subscriber text for anonymous visitors.
Get a The Japan Times article. Returns public article metadata. If the page marks its body as blurred for anonymous visitors, paywalled is true and hidden subscriber text is omitted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical HTTPS The Japan Times article URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses that only public metadata is returned and precisely what happens for paywalled content — 'blurred' bodies yield paywalled=true and subscriber text is omitted. This is genuine behavioral detail not derivable from the schema, though it does not mention rate limits or error behavior for non-canonical URLs.
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, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the return-value and paywall caveat. 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?
With no output schema, the description usefully explains what is returned (public article metadata) and the paywalled flag semantics, covering the key behavior an agent needs. It stops short of describing the metadata fields or response structure, but for a single-URL fetch tool this is close to complete.
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% and the single 'url' parameter is already documented as 'Canonical HTTPS The Japan Times article URL'. The description adds no additional semantics about URL format or accepted variants beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a The Japan Times article'), and the second sentence clarifies the returned payload ('public article metadata'). An agent can distinguish this URL-based article fetcher from sibling listing tools like japantimes_headlines and japantimes_news without opening the schema.
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 required 'url' parameter implies the tool is for fetching a known article, but the description never states when to prefer this over japantimes_news, japantimes_headlines, or japantimes_sections, nor any prerequisites for obtaining a valid URL. Usage is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.