Fetch a public New York Times article by its canonical URL. Results include title, authors, dates, section, keywords, image, and ordered body paragraphs; use this when you need the full article rather than a headline.
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and open-world reach are covered. The description adds that the target is a public NYT article and that results are ordered body paragraphs, but it does not mention what happens for paywalled/non-canonical URLs, rate limits, or error behavior for this open-world fetch.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then the return contents and the usage condition. No filler, nothing redundant.
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 the description need not explain return values, yet it still summarizes them helpfully. The input requirement (canonical URL) is stated, but edge cases (paywall, invalid URL handling) are absent for an open-world fetch tool. It is complete enough to call correctly, with minor gaps.
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?
One parameter (url) with 0% schema description coverage. The description supplies the only semantic constraint: it must be a canonical NYT article URL, which is genuinely useful and beyond the bare 'string' type. However it adds no format example or guidance on non-canonical or non-NYT URLs, so it is adequate rather than rich.
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 (Fetch) and resource (a public New York Times article) with scope (by canonical URL), and lists the returned fields. An agent can immediately distinguish this full-article tool from the sibling nyt_headlines, nyt_sections, nyt_author, and nyt_categories.
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 says 'use this when you need the full article rather than a headline', which contrasts with the headline-oriented sibling. It does not name nyt_headlines directly or state when not to use it (e.g., for search/browse), so it stops short of a full 5.
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.
