Extract public metadata and readable body paragraphs from a canonical Malay Mail article URL.
Get a Malay Mail article. Extracts public article metadata and readable body paragraphs from a canonical Malay Mail story URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Malay Mail article URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return content ('public article metadata and readable body paragraphs') and implies a non-authenticated read via 'public'. It omits failure behavior, paywall/robots limits, and any rate/auth constraints.
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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the extraction scope; every clause earns its place with no redundancy.
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 single-URL fetch tool with no output schema, the description adequately signals what comes back (metadata plus body paragraphs). It could go slightly further on edge cases (invalid/non-article URLs), but nothing essential is missing.
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 'url' parameter is documented as a canonical story URL in both schema and description. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (a Malay Mail article) and clarifies scope by saying it extracts metadata and reader body paragraphs from a story URL. This distinguishes it from malaymail_headlines/news, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 mention of a 'canonical Malay Mail story URL' implies this is for fetching a single known story rather than browsing, which is useful implied guidance. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to malaymail_headlines/malaymail_news for discovery.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.