Fetch MakeUseOf article metadata and readable body paragraphs from a canonical URL. Extract public content for summaries, research, or monitoring.
Get MakeUseOf article content. Returns public MakeUseOf article metadata and readable body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical MakeUseOf 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 disclosure burden. It does describe the returned shape (public metadata plus readable body paragraphs) and 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, failure behavior for paywalled or non-canonical URLs, or how much of the body is returned.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return contract. No filler, no redundancy.
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 fetch tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: input form (canonical URL) and what comes back. It stops short of edge-case behavior such as a missing/invalid article or partial body extraction, which would be needed for a 5.
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 coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, whose schema description ('Canonical MakeUseOf article URL') is essentially duplicated by the description. No additional syntax or format detail is added, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get MakeUseOf article content') and describes the exact payload returned ('metadata and readable body paragraphs from a canonical article URL'). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like makeuseof_headlines, makeuseof_news, makeuseof_author, and makeuseof_sections, which surface lists or feeds rather than a single article body.
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?
Usage is implied by the description: supply a canonical article URL to retrieve that article's content. However, it never states when to use this tool versus makeuseof_headlines/makeuseof_news (discovery) or what to do with a non-canonical URL, so the agent must infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.