Retrieve Liverpool Echo article content from a canonical URL. Returns article metadata, section, and body paragraphs while rejecting photo-gallery URLs.
Get Liverpool Echo article content. Returns public Liverpool Echo article metadata (including the section) and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL. Photo-gallery URLs are rejected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Liverpool Echo 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 burden. It discloses that content is public, what is returned (metadata and body paragraphs), and that photo-gallery URLs are rejected. It does not cover error behavior or output format, but for a simple retrieval tool this is adequate.
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 action and resource, and no filler. The gallery rejection is placed at the end as a useful constraint.
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 retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers input requirements, output content, and a key exclusion. It could mention error or redirect behavior, but nothing essential to selecting and invoking the tool 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?
The schema already documents the single url parameter at 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing 'canonical' and explicitly rejecting photo-gallery URLs, which clarifies valid input beyond the schema.
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 'Liverpool Echo article content', and specifies returns metadata (including the section) and body paragraphs. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like liverpoolecho_headlines, liverpoolecho_news, and other publication article tools.
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?
Description gives clear invocation context: use with a canonical article URL, and explicitly excludes photo-gallery URLs. It does not name alternative tools, but the canonical-URL requirement and gallery rejection provide enough guidance for correct use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.