Fetch metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical Wccftech article URL for news, reviews, how-tos, roundups, company, or best-of pages. Returns clean structured article content.
Get a Wccftech article. Returns metadata and body paragraphs for a canonical public Wccftech news, review, how-to, roundup, company, or best-of article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Wccftech 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 provided, the description carries more burden but only states that it 'Returns metadata and body paragraphs' and references a 'canonical public' URL. It adds useful output shape, but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error behavior, or other access traits.
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 tightly written sentences. The purpose is front-loaded, and the return behavior follows immediately with no wasted language.
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-URL article retrieval tool with a fully described parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states what the tool gets and what it returns. It lacks explicit sibling routing guidance, but that is a minor gap given the straightforward operation.
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 schema already documents the URL parameter. The description adds value by specifying that the URL must be a canonical public Wccftech article and by enumerating supported article categories such as news, review, how-to, roundup, company, and best-of.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get a Wccftech article,' and scopes the article types it supports. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like wccftech_headlines or wccftech_news, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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 phrase 'for a canonical public Wccftech ... article URL' implies when the tool is applicable, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus wccftech_headlines, wccftech_news, wccftech_author, or wccftech_sections. Usage is therefore implied but not fully guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.