Fetch Global News article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL. Returns clean JSON for structured data extraction.
Get Global News article content. Returns public Global News article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Global 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 must carry the transparency burden. It does disclose that the operation reads 'public' content and returns metadata plus body paragraphs, implying a read-only, no-auth fetch. But it omits error behavior, URL validity constraints, and any structural caveats, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.
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 sentences, no filler, with the main action and return payload front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place.
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 simple single-parameter article fetch tool, the description adequately covers the input and the general shape of the response. It is complete enough for invocation, though the lack of an output schema means specific metadata fields are not enumerated.
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% and the single parameter already has a clear description ('Canonical Global News article URL'). The description only repeats that same concept without adding format, source, or validation details, so it stays at the baseline.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('Global News article content'), and specifies what is returned ('metadata and body paragraphs') plus the required input ('canonical article URL'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like globalnews_headlines or globalnews_author even without naming them.
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 appropriate use case is implied: call this tool when you have a canonical Global News article URL and want the article's content. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as globalnews_headlines, so routing guidance is thin.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.