Retrieve Philadelphia Inquirer article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical story URL to access public news content as clean JSON.
Get Philadelphia Inquirer article content. Returns public Philadelphia Inquirer article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical story URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Philadelphia Inquirer story URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only public article content is returned and that the URL must be canonical, and it specifies the return fields (metadata, body paragraphs). It does not address invalid URLs, errors, or other edge behavior, but the tool's simple read-only fetch nature makes this 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?
Two compact sentences front-load the verb and resource, and the second adds specific return information with no filler. Every phrase 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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no nested objects, the description covers the necessary invocation details: input is a canonical URL and the result is metadata plus body paragraphs. Minor gaps like URL validation or error behavior do not meaningfully hamper an agent for this simple fetch.
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?
The schema already describes the single 'url' parameter as a 'Canonical Philadelphia Inquirer story URL' with 100% coverage. The description only repeats 'canonical story URL' and adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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 action ('Get') and resource ('Philadelphia Inquirer article content') and discloses the return type ('metadata and body paragraphs'). It clearly differs in scope from siblings like phillyinquirer_headlines or phillyinquirer_news, though it does not explicitly name them.
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 requirement for a 'canonical story URL' implies the tool is for retrieving a single known article, but the description does not state when to choose it over phillyinquirer_headlines/phillyinquirer_sections or what to do without a canonical URL. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.