Extracts Gulf News article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL, returning clean JSON for public news content retrieval within Crawlora MCP.
Get Gulf News article content. Returns public Gulf News article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Gulf 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently declares the operation is a read ('Get') and constrains the data to 'public' articles, and clearly states the return content (metadata and body paragraphs). It does not disclose any side effects or error handling, but for a simple fetch tool this is sufficient.
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 with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded ('Get Gulf News article content'), followed by a precise description of output and input. Every sentence 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains exactly what input is needed (canonical URL) and what will be returned (metadata and body paragraphs). Nothing necessary for invoking the tool is missing, and the low complexity does not demand more.
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 schema already covers the single parameter with 'Canonical Gulf News article URL', and the description repeats 'canonical article URL' without adding new meaning. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the description neither degrades nor enhances parameter understanding.
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') and a specific resource ('Gulf News article content'), and further specifies the output as 'public Gulf News article metadata and body paragraphs.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from other Gulf News tools like gulfnews_sections (which retrieves section listings) and from article tools for other publications.
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 by stating the input requirement ('from a canonical article URL') but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, nor does it name any exclusions. For a single-param tool with a clear resource, this is adequate but leaves the agent to infer the decision context without sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.