Return a story's extraction map as a real graph — nodes + edges data, not a picture. This is the load-bearing artifact for agents: re-render it in any style, or analyze who extracts value from whom. 'Not found' can mean the story has no graph (culture/research modes, or older transforms).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The story id, verbatim (ids contain slashes) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, describing a read operation. It adds transparency about the 'not found' case meaning no graph exists due to story mode or older transforms, which goes beyond the annotation.
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 concise with three sentences. The first sentence states the action and resource, the second adds context on usage value, and the third clarifies a possible scenario. No unnecessary words.
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?
The description is sufficiently complete for a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and readOnlyHint. It explains the output format (nodes+edges, not picture), use case, and a caveat, covering essential context.
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 already describes the single parameter 'id' with adequate detail. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for 100% coverage.
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 the purpose: return a story's extraction map as a real graph (nodes + edges data, not a picture). It distinguishes from siblings like get_article by specifying the resource and data format.
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 explains that this is a 'load-bearing artifact' for agents to re-render or analyze value extraction, implying usage scenarios. It also notes that 'not found' may indicate no graph exists, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: retrieving articles, graphs, related stories, site info, categories, and listing stories. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_*, list_*), making the API predictable and easy to navigate.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a specialized news analysis API. Not too few, not too many.
Covers core functionality (listing, retrieving, related stories, metadata). Minor gap: no full-text search, but title search suffices for many use cases.
