Retrieve The Sun article metadata and body text from a canonical URL, returning structured JSON for integration.
Get The Sun article content. Returns public The Sun article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical The Sun 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 behavioral burden. It discloses that only public content is returned, that it outputs metadata plus body paragraphs, and that the input must be a canonical article URL. This conveys a read-only retrieval operation without needing to spell out side effects.
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 single sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, followed by a precise statement of outputs. There is no filler or redundant explanation; the slight repetition of 'The Sun' is harmless and aids clarity.
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 one-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the required input type and the nature of the returned data. No critical information needed to call the tool correctly is missing.
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 already describes the single parameter as 'Canonical The Sun article URL' with 100% coverage, and the description largely repeats this ('from a canonical article URL'). It adds no syntax, formatting, or URL-construction details beyond the schema.
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 states a clear action and resource: 'Get The Sun article content' and specifies the exact output (metadata and body paragraphs) from a canonical article URL. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sun_headlines, sun_news, sun_sections, and other publishers' article tools.
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 makes the usage context clear: call this when you have a canonical The Sun article URL and want its article content. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the trigger condition is evident enough for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.