Extract ScreenRant article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL to retrieve structured public article content for analysis or integration.
Get ScreenRant article content. Returns public ScreenRant article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical ScreenRant 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. It discloses that the tool returns public content and includes metadata and body paragraphs. It doesn't mention rate limits, error behavior, or read-only status explicitly, but the 'Returns' phrasing implies a safe read operation. This is adequate but minimal.
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, front-loaded with the action verb and resource, followed by output details. No wasted words.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description gives a clear high-level summary of the return content (metadata and body paragraphs). It doesn't detail the structure of the return, but that's not necessary for invocation. It's complete enough for an agent to know what to pass and what to expect.
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 parameter description already states 'Canonical ScreenRant article URL'. The description's mention of 'canonical article URL' adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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') and resource ('ScreenRant article content'), and specifies the output (metadata and body paragraphs). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like screenrant_headlines or screenrant_author by focusing on full article content from a canonical 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 usage: call this when you need ScreenRant article content from a canonical URL. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as using screenrant_headlines for headlines or screenrant_sections for section listings. No exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.