Retrieve Rappler article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL, with paywalled stories flagged for access.
Get Rappler article content. Returns public Rappler article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL. Rappler+ member-tier stories are flagged with paywalled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Rappler 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 disclosure burden. It does this well by stating it returns public article metadata and body paragraphs, and that Rappler+ member-tier stories are flagged as paywalled. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or errors, but for a simple read-style retrieval tool this is reasonably transparent.
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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and output, and the second adds the useful paywall edge case. The structure 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 tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential invocation context: what to pass, what comes back, and the paywall behavior. It could be more specific about the metadata fields returned, but it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 input schema already fully describes the only parameter as a canonical Rappler article URL. The description essentially repeats that notion without adding examples, URL format details, or domain restrictions, so it adds little beyond 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?
The description clearly states the tool gets Rappler article content and specifically returns metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL. This identifies the exact resource and operation, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like rappler_author, rappler_headlines, or other publications' 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 gives a clear condition for use: when the agent has a canonical Rappler article URL and needs the article content. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the URL-based scope is clear enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.