Fetch public Punch article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL for structured content extraction.
Get Punch article content. Returns public Punch article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Punch 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the content is 'public' and that the tool returns metadata plus body paragraphs, suggesting a read-only operation. It does not mention rate limits, error behavior, or handling of non-canonical URLs, but these are minor for a simple fetch tool.
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 concise, purposeful sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core verb and resource, then provides the output and input constraints in the second sentence.
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, read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives enough information: the input is a canonical URL and the output is metadata plus body paragraphs. It could be more explicit about return structure, but the agent can invoke it correctly with the provided context.
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 'url' parameter is already described as 'Canonical Punch article URL'. The description reinforces this by repeating 'from a canonical article URL', but it adds no meaningful new details about format or constraints 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 clearly states the action ('Get Punch article content') and specifies what is returned ('public Punch article metadata and body paragraphs'). It is easy to tell apart from sibling list and author tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast 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 phrase 'from a canonical article URL' implies the tool is for fetching a specific article when the URL is known. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over related Punch tools like punch_headlines, punch_news, or punch_author.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.