Retrieve PEOPLE article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL to extract structured content for publishing or analysis.
Get PEOPLE article content. Returns public PEOPLE article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical PEOPLE 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the operation returns data, implying a read-only action, and clarifies it accesses public content. It does not disclose any limitations, error conditions, or side effects, but for a simple get operation this is adequate.
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 sentences with no fluff, front-loading the core action and then specifying the return content. Every word adds value, making it highly efficient.
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 adequately covers what it does and what it returns. It lacks details on pagination or response format, but the simplicity of the tool makes it sufficiently complete for an agent to call 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 url parameter has a description). The description reinforces the 'canonical' aspect, adding slight value beyond the schema, but does not provide additional format or validation details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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), the resource (PEOPLE article content), and the scope (metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL). It distinguishes from sibling tools like people_headlines or people_author, which target different resources, making 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 implies usage when a canonical article URL is available but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like people_author or people_headlines. It lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings, though the URL parameter strongly suggests the trigger condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.