Fetch Page Six article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL. Use it to extract structured public content for reading or analysis.
Get Page Six article content. Returns public Page Six article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Page Six 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 states the tool returns metadata and paragraphs, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
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?
The description is two clean sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the main action and includes the essential output scope. Efficient and appropriate length.
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?
Given the tool is a simple single-parameter fetch, the description is adequate. It mentions the return of metadata and body paragraphs, but since there is no output schema, a bit more detail on the structure of metadata could be helpful. However, it is reasonably complete for the agent's needs.
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 adds no additional semantics beyond reiterating the 'canonical' nature of the URL, which is also in the schema. Therefore, it does not add value beyond what structured data provides.
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 'Page Six article content', and specifies the output includes metadata and body paragraphs. It is specific and not a tautology, and it's obvious this tool is for fetching Page Six articles, distinguishing it from sibling tools for other sources.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or alternative tools. While the tool name and resource make it clear it's for Page Six, it lacks explicit routing guidance that the rubric considers ideal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.