Retrieve CBS News article content from a canonical URL, returning article metadata and body paragraphs in clean JSON.
Get CBS News article content. Returns public CBS News article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical CBS 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 burden. It discloses that it returns metadata and body paragraphs and notes 'public' articles, implying behavior for public content. However, it doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the URL is invalid or private. It provides basic transparency but not rich detail.
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 concise sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the return type is summarized efficiently. Every word contributes to the overall meaning.
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-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it returns (metadata and body paragraphs) and notes the 'public' scope. It lacks details on exact return structure or errors, but given simplicity and schema coverage, it's reasonably complete.
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 parameter (url), and the tool description reiterates 'canonical article URL' without adding new semantics. Since the schema already fully documents the parameter, the description adds no extra meaning beyond restating it.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'CBS News article content', and specifies that it returns metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL. It distinguishes from siblings like cbsnews_headlines or cbsnews_news by focusing on a specific article, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies you need a canonical URL, but does not state conditions like 'use this when you have a specific article URL' or mention when to choose headlines/sections tools. The description lacks exclusionary or comparative context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.