Extract metadata and text paragraphs from a canonical Yardbarker story URL. Rejects quiz, account, player, and non-article links.
Get a Yardbarker article. Extracts metadata and the publicly served text paragraphs from a canonical Yardbarker story URL. Quiz, account, player, and non-article URLs are rejected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Yardbarker story 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 carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what it returns (metadata plus text paragraphs) and states that certain URL classes are rejected, and 'publicly served' hints no auth is needed. It stops short of return format, rate limits, or failure behavior.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return behavior, then input constraints. No padding; each sentence adds information.
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-URL fetch tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned and the input's validity constraints, which is close to sufficient. Missing only navigation guidance to a URL-producing sibling tool.
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 there is only one parameter, so the baseline is met by the schema alone. The description adds real meaning by qualifying the URL as a 'canonical Yardbarker story URL' and enumerating rejected URL types, which constrains what a valid value looks like.
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 Yardbarker article') and clarifies what is extracted (metadata plus publicly served text paragraphs). It implicitly separates itself from listing tools like yardbarker_headlines by requiring a canonical story URL, but it never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is only partial.
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?
Implies usage requires a canonical story URL and rules out quiz, account, player, and non-article URLs, which is useful boundary-setting. However it never says how to obtain a valid URL or which alternative tool to use when the URL is one of the rejected types, leaving routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.