Extract Evening Standard article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL. Use it to retrieve structured public content for reading, analysis, or archiving.
Get Evening Standard article content. Returns public Evening Standard article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Evening Standard 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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the article is public and returns metadata/body paragraphs, but does not mention read-only behavior, potential errors, rate limits, or output formatting. This is minimal transparency for a tool with no annotation support.
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?
The description is two sentences with no filler, and the core action and resource are front-loaded. Every word adds value, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
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 a reasonable overview, but it could be more complete by listing which metadata fields are returned or what 'canonical URL' precisely entails. Given the large number of sibling article tools, a bit more specificity would help an agent select it confidently.
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 documents the url parameter at 100% coverage. The description adds context by specifying 'canonical' and 'Evening Standard', which clarifies the expected URL format and source, but beyond that it does not add meaning beyond the schema. 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 action ('Get'), the specific resource ('Evening Standard article'), and the return type ('metadata and body paragraphs'). It distinguishes this tool from the many sibling article tools by naming the publication, so an agent can tell it apart without ambiguity.
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 implies usage for Evening Standard articles, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.