Extract Daily Mail article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL, returning structured public content as clean JSON.
Get Daily Mail article content. Returns public Daily Mail article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Daily Mail 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 full burden. It does disclose that the tool accesses 'public' content impersonating no authentication barriersww and that it returns specific fields (metadata and body). Yet it doesn't mention any potential quirks like paywalls, redirects, or whether the content is plain text or HTML. The explicit 'public' and 'Get' imply a safe read operation, but more could be said.
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 two concise sentences. It front-loads the action ('Get Daily Mail article content') and immediately states the return type and the required input. No wasted words or redundant details.
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?
The description adequately covers the core requirements for a simple single-parameter fetch: what it returns (metadata and body paragraphs) and what input is needed (canonical URL). It does not explain error handling or output format, but since there is no output schema qualitative, this level of detail is sufficient for a public article fetcher.
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 provides a 100% description for the single parameter: 'Canonical Daily Mail article URL'. The description adds no information beyond what is already in the schema, even repeating the word 'canonical' without clarifying format or validation rules. This is baseline behavior.
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 tool's purpose: 'Get Daily Mail article content' and specifies it returns 'metadata and body paragraphs' from a canonical URL. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dailymail_headlines or dailymail_author by focusing on article-level content retrieval.
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 usage: you need a canonical Daily Mail article URL to fetch its content. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like dailymail_headlines for discovering URLs or dailymail_author for author details. Guidance is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.