Fetch article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical ProPublica URL for structured research, monitoring, or analysis.
Get ProPublica article content. Returns public ProPublica article metadata (title, author(s), published/updated dates, dek) and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical ProPublica 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 the content is 'public' and outlines the return structure, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or any side effects, leaving some behavioral aspects ambiguous.
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 redundancy. It front-loads the primary action and return value, and every word serves a purpose. Excellent efficiency.
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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (metadata fields and body paragraphs) and the input requirement. For a simple single-article fetch, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke it 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% for the single 'url' parameter, and the description merely echoes 'canonical article URL' without adding substantive detail beyond the schema. The parameter is well-documented, so the description adds minimal value.
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 tool fetches ProPublica article content and specifies the exact data returned (metadata and body paragraphs). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like propublica_headlines and propublica_news by focusing on a single article's full content.
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—'from a canonical article URL' suggests the agent must have a URL—but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., propublica_headlines for lists). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.