Extracts public article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical The Daily Beast URL, enabling content analysis or reading.
Get The Daily Beast article content. Returns public The Daily Beast article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical The Daily Beast article URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It signals read-only behavior through 'Get,' public accessibility, and specifies the return content as 'metadata and body paragraphs.' It doesn't mention rate limits or error handling, but those are not critical for this simple read operation.
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 short and front-loaded: purpose first, return details second. It loses the top score only for minor redundancy, repeating 'The Daily Beast' twice and pairing 'article content' with 'article metadata and body paragraphs.'
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 getter with no output schema, it covers the input requirement, public access, and what the response contains. It could be more specific about metadata fields, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.
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 URL parameter already has a clear description: 'Canonical The Daily Beast article URL.' The description restates 'canonical article URL' without adding new parameter-level meaning, so the schema is doing the work.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('The Daily Beast article content'), and further narrows scope with 'from a canonical article URL.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like thedailybeast_headlines, thedailybeast_sections, and thedailybeast_author.
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 gives a clear trigger: use this tool when you have a canonical The Daily Beast article URL. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the input condition plus the sibling tool names make the intended use clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.