Fetch The Hill article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL to extract clean, structured content for analysis or republishing.
Get The Hill article content. Returns public The Hill article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical The Hill 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 full burden. It states the tool returns 'public' metadata and body paragraphs, implying a read operation, but it does not disclose potential limitations such as paywalls, rate limits, or behavior for non-canonical URLs. Minimal behavioral context is provided.
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 concise sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core action and return type, and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.
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 fetch tool, the description is reasonably complete: it states the input and output. However, with no output schema, it leaves unspecified what 'metadata' includes and does not address error conditions or edge cases. It is adequate but not thorough.
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%, and the parameter 'url' is described as 'Canonical The Hill article URL'. The description repeats the term 'canonical' but adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for full coverage.
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 resource 'The Hill article content', and specifies it returns metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL. It is specific enough to distinguish from headline/news tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling 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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like thehill_headlines or thehill_news. The description does not mention any conditions or exclusions for its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.