Extract public Sporting News US article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL. Returns clean JSON for research, monitoring, or content analysis.
Get Sporting News article content. Returns public Sporting News US article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Sporting News US 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 full burden. It discloses the output (metadata and body paragraphs), but it does not mention error handling, rate limits, response format, or explicitly confirm read-only behavior. It is not outright misleading but leaves gaps.
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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and every word contributes information. It is efficient and easy to parse.
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 output schema or annotations, the description is fairly complete—it covers input and expected output. It lacks details on failure modes or the exact structure of returned data, which is a minor but not critical gap.
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 description adds little beyond restating the 'canonical' URL requirement already present in the schema. It does not elaborate on URL format, validation, or accepted variations.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'Sporting News article content', and specifies it returns metadata and body paragraphs. It is distinct from sibling tools like sportingnews_author or sportingnews_headlines, though it does not 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?
The description implies usage when a canonical article URL is available, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use this tool. It provides context about the URL requirement but lacks explicit routing guidance among the many similar article tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.