news_readRead one news article in full by its id or URL
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "news_read"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Article id (from Headlines) or article URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Article id (from news_headlines) or article URL"New value: +"Article id (from Headlines) or article URL"Input schema / properties / urlRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Article URL, if you have the link rather than the id",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / urlAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Article URL, if you have the link rather than the id",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description's 'read' and 'in full' reinforce a safe, side-effect-free operation. It adds minimal extra behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, so a 3 is appropriate.
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 a single, information-dense sentence with no fluff, stating action, target, and identifier requirement in six words. Perfectly structured.
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-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core behavior and input requirements. It stops short of detailing the return structure, but 'in full' implies comprehensive content, which is adequate for this simple tool, so a 4.
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%; the schema already describes the id parameter as the article id or URL. The description repeats this without adding new parameter semantics, so it earns the baseline 3.
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 uses a specific verb ('read'), identifies the resource ('news article'), and scopes it to a single full article identified by id or URL. This clearly distinguishes it from news_list and news_search siblings, earning a 5.
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 implies that the tool requires an existing article identifier or URL, suggesting it should be used after searching or listing. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls at a 3.
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.