Fetch a public Politico article's metadata and full body paragraphs from its canonical URL.
Get Politico article content. Returns a public Politico article's metadata and full body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical www.politico.com 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 of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that the article must be public and that the response includes metadata plus full body paragraphs. However, it does not cover error behavior, access restrictions, auth needs, or response format, which would be helpful with no output schema.
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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded ('Get Politico article content'), and the second sentence adds precise return-value detail. 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 simple single-parameter read-only fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: what it fetches, from where, and for which outlet. The only real gap is the lack of detail about the exact metadata fields returned, but that is not required for correct invocation.
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 input schema already documents the url parameter as 'Canonical www.politico.com article URL.' The description merely repeats 'canonical article URL' without adding format, validation, or edge-case guidance, so it adds no value beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get Politico article content.' It further specifies the return value (metadata and full body paragraphs) and the input source (canonical article URL), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like politico_headlines, politico_categories, or outlet-specific article tools.
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 when to use the tool: when you have a canonical Politico article URL and want full article content. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., politico_headlines for headlines, politico_author for author info) or state when not to use it, leaving the routing decision mostly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.