Retrieve Deutsche Welle article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL to access structured public news content.
Get DW article content. Returns public Deutsche Welle article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical DW 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 behavioral disclosure. It usefully notes that the content is public and that the result includes metadata and body paragraphs. It does not mention error behavior, URL handling, or response details, but for a simple read-only getter this is minimally adequate.
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 compact, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the return value with no filler or unnecessary 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 one-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: source, public availability, URL requirement, and returned content. It could specify the exact metadata fields, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.
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's schema description already says 'Canonical DW article URL'. The description repeats that phrase without adding examples, formats, or additional constraints, so the schema carries the meaning.
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 action ('Get'), a specific resource ('DW article content'), and the returned content ('metadata and body paragraphs') from a canonical article URL. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the mention of body paragraphs and canonical URL separates it from listing, author, and section tools.
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 the tool: when an agent already has a canonical DW article URL and wants the full article content. However, it never explicitly states when not to use it or how it differs from related tools like dw_headlines, dw_news, or dw_sections.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.