Fetch public News18 article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical url. Use news18_headlines for story lists, news18_sections to browse sections, or news18_news for the general feed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical News18 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 News18 article URL"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the content is 'public' (no auth implied) and the return includes both metadata and body paragraphs. It stops short of noting rate limits or pagination, so it is strong but not exhaustive.
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, zero waste. The core action and its scope are front-loaded, and the routing information follows immediately in the same compact block.
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?
A read-only single-URL fetch tool with an output schema, 100% parameter coverage, and annotations covering the safety profile. The description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: which sibling to pick for list/section/feed needs. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.
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% and the single parameter is fully described in the schema as 'Canonical News18 article URL'. The description repeats the same 'canonical url' terminology without adding format or validation detail, so baseline 3 is correct for a one-param tool where the schema does the work.
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 News18 article 'metadata and body paragraphs' from a canonical url. It also names the sibling tools it is not (headlines, sections, news), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.
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 second sentence explicitly routes the agent: use news18_headlines for story lists, news18_sections to browse sections, news18_news for the general feed. Combined with the 'canonical url' requirement, the when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else conditions are both stated.
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.