Extract public Raw Story article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL. Provide clean article content for research, summaries, or monitoring.
Get Raw Story article content. Returns public Raw Story article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Raw Story 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, description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Returns public Raw Story article metadata and body paragraphs,' implying a read-only operation and public access, but does not disclose error behavior, response size limits, or whether any pagination is involved. It's minimal but not misleading.
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, no fluff. The main action is front-loaded ('Get Raw Story article content') followed by the return value details. Every word adds value.
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?
There is no output schema, so description must explain return values. It gives a high-level summary (metadata and body paragraphs) but lacks specifics about the metadata fields, structure of body paragraphs, or potential error responses. For a single-URL tool, this is adequate but not complete.
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 already covers the single url parameter with 100% description coverage. Description reiterates 'canonical article URL' without adding new information about required format or examples. Baseline of 3 applies since schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
Description clearly states it retrieves Raw Story article content (metadata and body paragraphs) given a canonical URL. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rawstory_author, rawstory_headlines, rawstory_news by focusing on article content rather than author bios or headline lists, though it doesn't name them explicitly.
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?
Description implies usage when a canonical article URL is available and full article content is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings (e.g., to get article body vs. to list headlines) or mention any prerequisites beyond a URL. No explicit guidance on alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.