Extract public The National article metadata and body paragraphs from one canonical story URL, reflecting the access state served to anonymous visitors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only/open-world safety, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context: the extraction reflects the access state served to anonymous visitors, warning that content may be limited or paywalled compared to a logged-in view. That is a meaningful trait beyond the annotations, though pagination or truncation behavior is not mentioned.
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 tightly written sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the access-state caveat appended efficiently. 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the anonymous-access caveat, which is the key nuance for this tool. Slightly incomplete only in that it does not clarify behavior on non-canonical or invalid URLs.
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 0% on the single url parameter, so the description carries some burden. It adds the useful constraint that the URL must be a 'canonical story URL', but gives no format, example, or validation detail. Adequate but incomplete compensation for the coverage gap.
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 (Extract) and resource (article metadata and body paragraphs) and constrains the input to 'one canonical story URL'. This clearly separates it from siblings like national_headlines, national_news, and national_sections, which are listing/feed tools rather than single-article extractors.
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 'from one canonical story URL' implies the precondition (you must already have a canonical article URL) but does not explicitly state when to use this versus national_news or national_headlines, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.
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.
