Fetch structured Salon article data from a canonical URL, including title, authors, section, body paragraphs, and paywall status.
Get Salon article content. Returns a Salon article by canonical url on www.salon.com in the /YYYY/MM/DD/<slug>/ form: title, description, section, authors, publication and update times, image, body paragraphs and a paywalled flag.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the return profile (title, description, section, authors, times, image, body paragraphs, and a paywalled flag). The paywalled flag is genuine behavioral context that tells the agent content may be truncated. It does not cover auth needs or rate limits.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the return shape, with no padding. The enumerated field list is dense but directly useful.
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 article fetch with no output schema, the description supplies both the input format and the expected returned fields, which is what an agent needs. Minor gaps (no auth/rate-limit context) keep it from a 5.
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 coverage is 100% for the single url parameter, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaningful constraint beyond the schema: the URL must be canonical on www.salon.com in /YYYY/MM/DD/<slug>/ form. That helps the agent construct or validate input.
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 verb and resource ('Get Salon article content') and pins the retrieval mode to a canonical article URL. It clearly differs in function from sibling feed tools like salon_headlines or salon_sections, though it doesn't name an alternative explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied: call it with a full article URL to get article content. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of other salon_* tools, and no note about what to do if you only have a headline (e.g. use salon_headlines first).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.