Retrieve public metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical Motley Fool investing article URL. Use it to extract article content for research or analysis.
Get a Motley Fool article. Returns public metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical Fool investing article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical The Motley Fool investing article URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses what is returned (public metadata and body paragraphs), which is real context. However, it is silent on fetch failures, paywalling, partial content, or rate limits for a URL-fetch 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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by return-value scope. No filler.
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, the description reasonably covers what the tool does and what it returns. The remaining gap is error/paywall behavior, but a minimal read tool needs little more.
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 the single 'url' parameter is fully documented as a canonical Fool investing article URL. The description's mention of 'canonical Fool investing article URL' merely restates the schema, adding no new syntax or constraint detail (e.g. whether non-article URLs are rejected).
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?
Specific verb+resource ('Get a Motley Fool article') and it names the scope, which distinguishes it from motleyfool_headlines and motleyfool_news siblings that also cover the Fool domain. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from those siblings in wording, but the article-vs-feed distinction is inherent.
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?
No guidance on when to use this vs motleyfool_headlines/motleyfool_news, nor how to obtain the required canonical URL (presumably from those feed tools). Usage is only implied by the required URL parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.