Retrieve New York Magazine article content from a canonical URL. Returns metadata and body paragraphs as structured JSON for easy data extraction.
Get New York Magazine article content. Returns public New York Magazine article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical New York Magazine 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 discloses that this is a read operation returning only 'public' content (metadata and body paragraphs), which is useful context. However, it says nothing about failure behavior (invalid or non-canonical URLs, paywalled articles, redirects) or rate limits, leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 sentences totaling about 21 words, with the verb and resource front-loaded in the first sentence and output details in the second. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.
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 retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core needs: what it returns (metadata and body paragraphs), the input requirement (canonical URL), and scope (public NY Magazine content). Gaps are minor – no error-behavior notes and no elaboration of what 'metadata' contains – but nothing an agent needs to make a basic correct call is missing.
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% and the schema already describes url as 'Canonical New York Magazine article URL.' The description's 'canonical article URL' adds no new parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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+resource ('Get New York Magazine article content') and the output shape ('metadata and body paragraphs'), with a defined input ('canonical article URL'). The publication name and content scope distinguish it clearly from sibling *_article tools for other outlets and from nymag_headlines/nymag_news/nymag_sections/nymag_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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the 'canonical article URL' requirement implies using this when you already possess a specific canonical URL. No explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives are given, though the single fixed-URL input makes the intended scenario reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.