Fetch a Mediaite article from its canonical URL to return metadata and body paragraphs, and flag One Sheet premium pages as paywalled.
Get Mediaite article content. Returns public Mediaite article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL. Mediaite One Sheet (premium) pages are flagged paywalled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Mediaite 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 available, the description carries the full burden, and it addresses this by stating what is returned (metadata and body paragraphs) and how premium pages are handled ('flagged paywalled'). It does not cover error behavior or authentication, but it gives solid behavioral context for a simple read tool.
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 with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the paywall caveat is placed at the end without bloating the description.
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 article-fetching tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what input is required, what output to expect, and how premium content is distinguished, which is enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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%: the schema already documents the single 'url' parameter as a 'Canonical Mediaite article URL'. The description reinforces this with 'from a canonical article URL' but does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema, 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?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('Mediaite article content'), and output ('metadata and body paragraphs'). Requiring a 'canonical article URL' further distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like mediaite_headlines, mediaite_sections, or mediaite_author.
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 makes the use case clear: call this tool when you have a canonical Mediaite article URL and need the article's content. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the input condition and return type are clearly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.