lookup_contentLook up an article on Opedd by its URL to get the title, publication, available licence types and prices, or confirm it is not on Opedd.
Looks up an article on Opedd by its web address. Returns the title, publication, available licence types and prices, or that the article is not on Opedd.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The canonical URL of the article or content to look up |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value the annotations don't: what the response contains (title, publication, licence types and prices) and the 'article is not on Opedd' negative case, which tells the agent to expect a miss rather than an error.
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 sentences, zero filler. The lookup mechanism is front-loaded, then the return values and the negative case follow in the same sentence. Every clause earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden and covers both the hit and miss cases. It stops short of mentioning error behavior, auth requirements, or whether non-Opedd URLs error versus return empty, but for a single-parameter read tool it is close to complete.
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% with a single required 'url' parameter whose schema description already says 'canonical URL of the article or content to look up'. The description's 'by its web address' is slightly looser than the schema's 'canonical URL' and adds no new syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.
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 ('looks up an article on Opedd by its web address') and enumerates the payload: title, publication, licence types, prices, plus the not-found case. It's clear enough to distinguish from search_content or get_content, but it never names a sibling to disambiguate.
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 'by its web address' implies you must already hold a URL, which suggests usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives like get_content or search_content. An agent must infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.