Extract metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical NPR article URL. Use it to retrieve public article content as structured JSON.
Get NPR article content. Returns a public NPR article's metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical www.npr.org 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 burden. It makes the read-only nature explicit through 'Returns' and constrains behavior to public articles, implying no auth. It does not discuss errors or rate limits, but for a simple fetch-by-URL tool this is adequate.
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 core operation and key constraint are front-loaded, and every clause adds 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 one-parameter read tool, the description covers the essential requirements: what it returns, that it must be public, and that the URL must be canonical. No output schema exists, but 'metadata and body paragraphs' gives the agent a reasonable expectation of the result. It could optionally detail return fields, but that is not necessary 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?
The single url parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Canonical www.npr.org article URL'), and the description adds little beyond restating this. Baseline 3 is appropriate because schema coverage is 100% and the description reinforces the canonical constraint.
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 action ('Get NPR article content') and resource (public NPR article), and specifies the output (metadata and body paragraphs) and input (canonical URL). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like npr_headlines or npr_author.
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 communicates the context for use: when you have a canonical www.npr.org article URL and need that article's content. It does not name alternatives or explicit exclusions, but the 'canonical article URL' prerequisite gives the agent a clear trigger.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.