get_news_articleThe full text of a single BinaSmart news article by its slug from list_news.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Article slug from list_news |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| article | No | The article with its full text | |
| source_url | No | bina.et page this result comes from; cite it |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "article": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "description": "The article with its full text"
+ },
+ "source_url": {
+ "description": "bina.et page this result comes from; cite it",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description's only added signal is that the response is the complete article text (not a snippet). With an output schema present, no return-value detail is owed, but nothing is said about error 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?
One sentence, zero filler, with the resource and its lookup key front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 trivial single-parameter read with an output schema, full annotation coverage, and a complete input schema, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly. Only slug-validation or not-found behavior is left unstated, which is a minor gap.
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 description coverage is 100% and there is a single parameter, so the schema already documents 'slug' fully, including its origin. The description's 'by its slug from list_news' merely echoes the schema wording rather than adding format or validation 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 (fetch the full text of one news article) plus the exact lookup key (slug). It also names list_news as the origin of that slug, so an agent can immediately tell it apart from the sibling listing tool.
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 slug from list_news' effectively routes the agent: call list_news first, then come here with a slug. It gives clear context for use but states no exclusions or failure conditions (e.g., unknown/expired slug).
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.