Retrieve full Mashable article content by providing a canonical URL. Get article metadata and body paragraphs in clean JSON for analysis or integration.
Get Mashable article content. Returns public Mashable article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL. Mashable articles are free to read, so the full body is returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Mashable 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that Mashable articles are free and the full body is returned, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations, error behavior, or specifics about the metadata structure or body format. It adds some context but could be more explicit.
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?
Three short sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains what is returned, and the third adds behavioral context. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should explain what is returned. It says 'metadata and body paragraphs', which gives a high-level understanding. For a tool with a single parameter, this is sufficient. It doesn't specify the exact structure of metadata or body format, but it's adequate for selection and 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?
The schema already describes the url parameter as 'Canonical Mashable article URL', and the description repeats 'canonical article URL' without adding extra meaning like URL format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description doesn't add much beyond what's in the schema. The emphasis on 'canonical' and 'public' is already in 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?
The description clearly states the action (get) and the resource (Mashable article content), specifying that it returns metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL. It distinguishes itself from siblings like mashable_headlines, mashable_author, and mashable_news by focusing on retrieving the actual article content given a URL. The verb is specific and the scope is unambiguous.
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 implies usage: you need a canonical Mashable article URL to fetch content. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the name and description make it clear this is Mashable-specific. It doesn't say 'use this only for Mashable' or direct users to other tools for finding URLs, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.