Fetch RNZ news article content and metadata from a canonical rnz.co.nz URL, returning full body paragraphs as clean JSON for reading or analysis.
Get RNZ article content. Returns public RNZ news article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical rnz.co.nz/news/// article URL. RNZ has no paywall, so the full body is returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical RNZ news 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 full burden. It discloses that RNZ has no paywall and returns full body paragraphs, which is useful context. However, it doesn't mention return format, potential limitations (e.g., non-canonical URLs), or whether any authentication is needed. The description is honest but could cover more behavioral details.
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?
Three sentences with no filler, front-loaded with purpose, then specifies return contents and the no-paywall note. Minimal and clear.
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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, and a key behavioral note (no paywall). It lacks explicit instructions on error conditions (e.g., what happens if URL is not canonical) and doesn't specify the exact structure of returned metadata, but given simplicity it's adequate though not exhaustive.
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 coverage is 100% for the single 'url' parameter and the schema describes it as 'Canonical RNZ news article URL'. The description adds the URL format (rnz.co.nz/news/<section>/<id>/<slug>) which is slightly more detailed than the schema, but the parameter is simple. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 retrieves RNZ article content (metadata and body paragraphs) from a canonical article URL. It distinguishes from other RNZ tools like rnz_headlines by specifying full-body content retrieval, but doesn't explicitly differentiate by name.
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 mentions RNZ has no paywall, indicating full body is accessible, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like rnz_news or rnz_headlines. It implies usage by providing the URL format, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.