Fetch public metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical ScienceAlert article URL for reading or content extraction.
Get ScienceAlert article content. Returns public article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical ScienceAlert article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical ScienceAlert article URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the return shape ('public article metadata and body paragraphs') and signals public (unauthenticated) content, but says nothing about rate limits, pagination, paywalls, or error behavior on non-canonical URLs.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. Every clause earns its place with no filler or repetition of the tool name.
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 one-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers both intent and return content adequately. The absence of output schema means it could say slightly more about the returned fields, but nothing critical is missing to call 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?
Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the url field fully. The description reinforces 'canonical ... URL' but adds no syntax or format context beyond the schema, matching the baseline for full coverage.
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 ('Get') and resource ('ScienceAlert article content') and clarifies the scope with 'canonical ScienceAlert article URL'. It distinguishes itself from the sciencealert_headlines/news/sections siblings reasonably well, though it doesn't explicitly name 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?
Usage is only implied: an agent must infer this is for fetching a single article's full text after obtaining a URL from a list tool. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sciencealert_headlines or sciencealert_news.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.