Fetch public Salon article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL to extract readable article content.
Get Salon article content. Returns public Salon article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Salon 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, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the operation returns 'public' content and describes the output as metadata plus body paragraphs, implying a safe read operation. It does not mention error behavior, rate limits, or what happens for non-canonical URLs, but for a simple public retrieval tool this is acceptable though not rich.
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 first sentence states the action, and the second clarifies the exact return contents. Everything 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the input, the target publisher, the access level, and the return shape. It could be slightly stronger with an explicit note about expected behavior for invalid URLs or a brief statement that this fetches a single article rather than a list, but nothing essential is missing.
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 parameter is already documented as 'Canonical Salon article URL'. The description merely echoes this phrase without adding formats, examples, or constraints. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names a concrete resource ('Salon article content'), and specifies the return payload ('metadata and body paragraphs'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like salon_headlines, salon_author, and salon_news by anchoring usage to a canonical article URL.
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 Salon article URL and want its content. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it name alternatives such as salon_news or salon_headlines for list-style needs. Usage context is present but only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.