Fetch public The Hindu article content from a canonical URL, returning metadata and body paragraphs; subscriber-only stories return a permission error.
Get The Hindu article content. Returns public The Hindu article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL. A story The Hindu marks subscriber-only returns a permission error instead of a body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical The Hindu 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, the description carries the full burden. It transparently notes that only public articles are returned and that subscriber-only stories yield a permission error instead of a body. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the schema.
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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by what is returned and a key caveat. Every clause 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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential input, output, and failure mode. It could mention the response format in more detail, but that is not critical for a simple fetch tool.
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 defines the URL parameter with 100% coverage enough. The description repeats 'canonical article URL' but does not add any new semantic insight beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get The Hindu article content.' It further specifies what is returned (metadata and body paragraphs) and distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming the outlet and requiring a canonical article URL.
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 clear context by stating the input is a canonical article URL game, and it flags a subscriber-only restriction. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like thehindu_headlines or thehindu_news, leaving the agent to infer when to prefer this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.