Fetch a Sky Sports article from a canonical URL. Returns public metadata and body paragraphs for research or content workflows.
Get a Sky Sports article. Returns public Sky Sports article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Sky Sports article URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return content (metadata and body paragraphs) and that only public articles are served, implying no auth. It omits rate limits, failure behavior for non-canonical URLs, and pagination/truncation details.
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 followed by return contents. No filler, though it is arguably slightly terse for the behavioral/usage gaps it leaves.
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 simple one-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers what is retrieved and from where. It stops short of the routing and behavioral context an agent would need to confidently choose it over the many sibling Sky Sports endpoints.
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% and the single 'url' parameter is fully documented by the schema. The description's phrase 'canonical article URL' merely restates the schema's wording rather than adding format or validation meaning, so 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?
Specific verb (Get) plus resource (Sky Sports article) and it states the scope of the returned data. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like skysports_headlines, skysports_news, or skysports_sections, but the 'article from a URL' framing makes its niche inferable.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus skysports_headlines/skysports_news/skysports_sections, and no prerequisites such as where a canonical URL must come from. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.