Fetch Newsmax article content from a canonical URL. Returns article metadata and body paragraphs in clean JSON format.
Get Newsmax article content. Returns public Newsmax article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Newsmax 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, the description carries the burden. It adds useful context by noting the content is 'public' and specifying that it returns both metadata and body paragraphs. However, it doesn't disclose any edge behaviors (e.g., handling of paywalls, non-existent URLs, or response structure), so transparency is limited but adequate for a straightforward fetch.
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 with no filler. The main action and return value are front-loaded, and every word 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 article fetcher with no output schema, the description states the input requirement and the expected output (metadata and body paragraphs). It's slightly light on details like error handling or data format, but it's sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.
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 provides 100% coverage with a description for the URL parameter ('Canonical Newsmax article URL'). The tool description repeats 'canonical article URL' without adding further semantics, so it doesn't enhance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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'), a clear resource ('Newsmax article content'), and details what is returned ('metadata and body paragraphs'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like newsmax_headlines or newsmax_author by focusing on a single canonical article URL.
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 clearly implies the tool is for fetching a specific article via its canonical URL, which differentiates it from headline/news/section tools. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.