Extract Blaze Media article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical public editorial or show-story URL. Provide structured JSON content for research, summaries, or analysis.
Get a Blaze Media article. Returns article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical, publicly accessible editorial or show-story URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical theblaze.com article URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape ('article metadata and body paragraphs') and a retrieval constraint (must be publicly accessible), which is useful. However it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or error behavior for non-canonical URLs.
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 with the core purpose front-loaded and the return/constraint detail following. No waste, though it is minimal to the point of leaving gaps rather than being optimally informative.
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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what it returns and the input constraint. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only minor behavioral details absent.
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%, so the schema already documents the single url parameter well, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds marginal value by narrowing acceptable inputs to canonical, publicly accessible editorial or show-story URLs, but adds no format or syntax detail.
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 Blaze Media article') and clarifies scope ('editorial or show-story URL'), which implicitly separates it from sibling list tools like theblaze_headlines and theblaze_news. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against, so it stops short of a 5.
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 via the constraint that the input must be a canonical, publicly accessible editorial or show-story URL, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like theblaze_headlines. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.