Returns a CNN article's headline, description, author, publication and update times, section, image, and body paragraphs. Provide a canonical cnn.com article URL. url: Canonical cnn.com article URL. Use cnn_headlines to retrieve cNN section headlines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical cnn.com article URL |
| 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.
Input schema / properties / url / descriptionAdded value: +"Canonical cnn.com article URL"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true already declaring a safe read operation, the bar is lower. The description adds the return-field inventory and the canonical-URL requirement, but says nothing about failure behavior for malformed/non-canonical URLs, rate limits, or any auth expectation.
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?
Front-loaded with the return fields, which is good, but the URL requirement is stated twice in near-identical wording ('Provide a canonical cnn.com article URL' then 'url: Canonical cnn.com article URL'), which is redundant phrasing rather than additional 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?
An output schema exists, so listing return fields is supplementary rather than required, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a single-parameter reader tool the definition covers the essentials, with only the canonical-URL enforcement details left unstated.
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% for the single url parameter, so the schema already documents the input. The description restates the same 'Canonical cnn.com article URL' text rather than adding format, example, or validation detail, so baseline 3 is correct.
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 ('Returns') and resource (a CNN article) with an explicit field inventory: headline, description, author, times, section, image, body paragraphs. This clearly distinguishes it from cnn_headlines and cnn_author, though the differentiation is implicit in the field list rather than an explicit statement of scope.
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?
Provides the required input form ('Provide a canonical cnn.com article URL') and names an alternative tool with its condition ('Use cnn_headlines to retrieve CNN section headlines'). No when-not-to-use guidance, but the routing to the sibling is clear.
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.