Fetch and read complete CSDN article content by providing a valid blog.csdn.net URL, enabling full text extraction for analysis or reference without visiting the page directly.
Fetch full article content from a CSDN article URL (blog.csdn.net /article/details/ only; for other sites use fetchWebContent)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds the behavioral constraint that only CSDN article details URLs are accepted and that it fetches full content, which goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then provides the URL restriction and a clear alternative. Every clause earns its place with zero redundancy.
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?
Given the simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety), the description is largely complete. It specifies the action, scope, and usage boundary. The only minor gap is not describing the exact return format or error behavior, but this is not critical for a fetch 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?
The schema only defines url as a uri string, but the description adds critical meaning: the URL must be a CSDN article details URL (blog.csdn.net /article/details/). This is essential for correct invocation and is not conveyed by the schema alone.
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?
Clearly states the action (fetch full article content), the target resource (CSDN article URL), and specifies the exact URL pattern (blog.csdn.net /article/details/). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool fetchWebContent by name, making it easy for an agent to select correctly.
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?
Explicitly provides a usage boundary: 'only; for other sites use fetchWebContent'. This tells the agent when to use this tool and which alternative to fall back on, leaving no ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.