Fetch a Sportskeeda Wiki article by slug, returning its rendered title, metadata, and body paragraphs for display or analysis.
Get a Sportskeeda Wiki article. Returns the rendered article title, metadata, and body paragraphs. Pass the path_slug returned by sportskeeda-wiki-pages; URL and host input are not accepted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Host-free Wiki page path_slug from sportskeeda-wiki-pages |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape and the input constraint (no URL/host), but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or whether the read has any side effects. Adequate but not rich for an annotation-free tool.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its return value, followed by the input constraint. No filler.
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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how to obtain the input. It is nearly complete, missing only safety/read-only framing that annotations would normally supply.
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%, with the single slug parameter already documented as a 'Host-free Wiki page path_slug'. The description repeats this and adds the provenance (returned by sportskeeda-wiki-pages), which is useful but does not go beyond the schema baseline.
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 and resource ('Get a Sportskeeda Wiki article') and enumerates the return contents (title, metadata, body paragraphs). It implicitly differentiates from the other sportskeeda_wiki_* siblings by describing a full article rather than a summary, but does not name or contrast them explicitly.
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?
Gives clear workflow guidance: pass the path_slug returned by sportskeeda-wiki-pages, and explicitly notes URL and host input are not accepted. It does not spell out when to prefer this over sportskeeda_wiki_summary, so it falls short of full alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.