Fetch public Mirror article metadata and body paragraphs using a canonical article URL, returning structured JSON for research or content aggregation.
Get Mirror article content. Returns public Mirror article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Mirror 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is returned (metadata and body paragraphs) but does not mention that this is a read-only operation, any potential limitations (e.g., paywalls, non-public content), or error behavior. The word 'public' hints at accessibility but is insufficient without explicit disclosure.
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 action verb is front-loaded and the return value is stated immediately. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 simple single-parameter tool, the description gives a basic idea of the output but does not detail output structure (no output schema exists) or failure modes. It does not cover edge cases like invalid URLs or content availability. It is minimally adequate but not 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%, so the schema already documents the 'url' parameter. The description reinforces 'canonical article URL' but adds little new meaning beyond what the schema states. This meets the baseline for high coverage without enriching parameter semantics.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'Mirror article content', and specifies that it returns 'metadata and body paragraphs'. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like mirror_headlines or mirror_author, the resource and output are specific enough to make the purpose 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclude cases. Given the large set of sibling article-fetching tools, an agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.