Fetch Manchester Evening News article content from a canonical URL, returning metadata and body paragraphs for research, monitoring, or summarization.
Get Manchester Evening News article content. Returns public Manchester Evening News article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Manchester Evening 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool returns 'public' content and specifies the output type (metadata and body paragraphs), adding useful context. However, it does not disclose error behavior, canonical URL handling, or potential rate limits.
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 no redundant wording. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, and every sentence contributes meaningful information.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: it identifies the input (canonical URL) and the high-level return shape (metadata and body paragraphs). It could be more detailed about field names, but the tool's simplicity keeps this from being a significant gap.
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%, so the schema already documents the url parameter adequately. The description reinforces that the URL must be 'canonical' but adds little beyond that 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get Manchester Evening News article content', and clarifies what is returned ('metadata and body paragraphs'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like men_author, men_headlines, and other outlets' article 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 conveys clear context for use: when a canonical Manchester Evening News article URL is available and article content is needed. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.