Fetch Us Weekly article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL, returning clean JSON. Excludes photo galleries.
Get Us Weekly article content. Returns public Us Weekly article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL. Photo-gallery URLs are not supported.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Us Weekly article URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It communicates that the operation is read-only ('Returns'), that content is public, and that photo-gallery URLs are unsupported. It does not list exact metadata fields or error behavior, but that is a minor gap for a simple fetch 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 concise sentences with no filler. The main action and return type are front-loaded, and the important unsupported-case note is included without bloating the description.
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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned and the key input constraint. It could mention expected failure modes for unsupported URLs, but the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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% for the single URL parameter. The description adds value beyond the schema by emphasizing the 'canonical' requirement and explicitly excluding photo-gallery URLs. A URL format example would be helpful, but the parameter is already well-documented.
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 and resource: 'Get Us Weekly article content.' It also states what is returned (metadata and body paragraphs), and the canonical-URL constraint distinguishes it from sibling tools like usmagazine_headlines or usmagazine_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 makes the intended use clear: fetch content for a specific canonical Us Weekly article URL. It also gives an explicit exclusion ('Photo-gallery URLs are not supported'). It does not name alternative tools for other use cases, but the sibling family makes the selection clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.