Fetch public article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical News18 URL. Use it to extract News18 article content as structured data.
Get News18 article content. Returns public News18 article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical News18 article URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey that this is a read-only operation on public content, which implies no authentication and no destructive side effects. However, it does not mention rate limits, error behavior, or how the metadata/body will be structured in the response.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the output and input constraint. There is no filler or irrelevant detail; every sentence contributes useful 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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: it states the required input type and the general shape of the returned data. It does not exhaustively describe response fields, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.
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 description's 'canonical article URL' largely restates the schema's 'Canonical News18 article URL' without adding format constraints, examples, or additional guidance. The schema already carries the parameter semantics, so the description adds little beyond 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 clearly identifies a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('News18 article content'), and adds what the tool returns: metadata and body paragraphs. It is distinguishable from sibling News18 tools like news18_headlines or news18_author, though it does not explicitly name 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 description gives clear context: use this tool when you have a canonical News18 article URL and need article metadata/body content. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when to prefer a sibling tool, but the input condition is clear and not misleading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.