Extract Space.com article content from a canonical URL, returning metadata and body paragraphs as structured JSON for analysis.
Get Space.com article content. Returns public Space.com article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Space.com 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 must convey behavior. It states the tool returns public article metadata and body paragraphs, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose any potential errors, rate limits, authentication requirements, or the structure of the returned data, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
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?
The description is a two-sentence, front-loaded statement with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's action and output without redundancy.
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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it identifies the source (Space.com), the input (canonical URL), and the output (metadata and body paragraphs). It lacks explicit error handling or format details, but these are minor for a straightforward fetch operation.
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?
The schema covers the url parameter at 100% with a description matching the tool's mention of a 'canonical article URL'. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool retrieves Space.com article content, specifying that it returns article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like space_headlines, space_sections, and space_author, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 for fetching Space.com articles but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like space_news or other site-specific article tools. The context of the site name makes the use case somewhat clear, but no direct comparison or when-not-to-use instructions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.