Fetch AP News article content by canonical URL, returning public metadata and body paragraphs for structured reading and analysis.
Get AP News article content. Returns public AP News article metadata and body paragraphs. The service does not bypass authentication or access controls. Billing is 2 credits, or 10 credits when browser rendering is required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical AP News article URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that it does not bypass authentication or access controls (implying paywalled content will not be retrieved) and quantifies billing (2 credits, 10 with browser rendering). It still omits failure behavior on restricted URLs and any rate limits.
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?
Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then return content, then compliance/billing constraints. No filler or repetition.
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-URL article fetch with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the compliance posture, and the cost model. It is nearly complete, missing only explicit handling of paywalled/restricted article failure cases.
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% on the single 'url' parameter ('Canonical AP News article URL'), so the schema documents it fully. The description adds no additional URL-format or canonicalization guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.
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+resource ('Get AP News article content') and specifies the return scope ('metadata and body paragraphs'), which implicitly separates it from fetch siblings like apnews_headlines or apnews_news. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it falls short of 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?
Usage is only implied by the name and the mention of article body content. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no named sibling to route to for headlines or section listings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.