Extract CNA article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL. Returns clean JSON for news monitoring, research, or content aggregation.
Get CNA article content. Returns public CNA article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical CNA 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 provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states what is returned (metadata and body paragraphs) but doesn't mention error behavior, rate limits, or whether the URL must be publicly accessible. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It avoids filler and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable expectation of the return (metadata and body). It could mention URL format requirements or error scenarios, but for a straightforward fetch tool it is sufficiently 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?
The input schema already describes the 'url' parameter as 'Canonical CNA article URL', which covers 100% of parameters. The description echoes this requirement without adding significant new detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting, warranting the baseline 3.
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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('CNA article content'), and specifies what is returned (metadata and body paragraphs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cna_author and cna_headlines, which serve different purposes.
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 description implies when to use this tool: when you have a canonical CNA article URL and need its content. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context of siblings (e.g., cna_author for authors, cna_headlines for lists) makes the intended usage clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.