Extract public News.com.au article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL, returning structured JSON for content analysis.
Get News.com.au article content. Returns public News.com.au article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical News.com.au article URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool returns public metadata and body paragraphs and requires a canonical URL, which gives useful context about input and output. However, it does not mention error behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or how it handles non-canonical or paywalled URLs.
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 filler: the first states the action and resource, the second specifies the return content and input requirement. Information is front-loaded and 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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is largely complete: it names the input requirement, the source site, and the shape of the returned data. It could add a brief note about when to choose this tool over sibling article or headline tools, but the core invocation context is covered.
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 describes the only parameter as 'Canonical News.com.au article URL,' with 100% schema description coverage. The description repeats 'canonical article URL' without adding meaningful new semantics, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance the schema.
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 and resource: 'Get News.com.au article content,' and further clarifies the return value as 'metadata and body paragraphs' from 'a canonical article URL.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like newscomau_author, newscomau_headlines, and newscomau_sections, which serve different purposes.
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 no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention 'use when you have a canonical article URL' as a routing condition, nor does it reference any sibling tools such as newscomau_headlines or other publisher article tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.