Extract public SBS News article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL, covering standard, Insight, and Dateline stories for structured content use.
Get SBS News article content. Returns public SBS News article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL, including standard, Insight, and Dateline stories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical SBS News article URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns public metadata and body paragraphs and enumerates the supported story types (standard, Insight, Dateline). However, it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, robustness to non-canonical URLs, or error behavior.
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 tight sentences; the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by return-content detail. No filler.
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 read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what comes back and which story types are supported. It could be stronger on edge cases (invalid/non-article URLs), but nothing essential is missing.
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 description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents the url. The description reinforces that the URL must be canonical, adding slight meaning, but doesn't compensate beyond the baseline.
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) and resource (SBS News article content), and explicitly scopes the input to a canonical article URL. This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like sbsnews_headlines, sbsnews_news, and sbsnews_sections, which cover different surfaces.
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?
It implies the use case (fetch full article content given a URL) but offers no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives for retrieving SBS News content by other means. Usage is inferable but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.