Fetches full TheJournal.ie article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL for research, summarization, or news monitoring.
Get TheJournal.ie article content. Returns public TheJournal.ie article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL. Stories are served in full to anonymous readers, so paywalled is never set.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical TheJournal.ie 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 behavioral burden and does reasonably well: it states the response contains public metadata and body paragraphs, notes that stories are served in full to anonymous readers, and explains that paywalled is never set. It does not discuss error cases, but for a simple read tool this is adequate.
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 three short sentences with no filler: operation first, then return contents, then the paywalled caveat. Each sentence adds information beyond the schema, and the structure is front-loaded for quick agent comprehension.
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 one-parameter read-only fetch with no output schema, the description covers the required input type, the return shape, and access/paywall behavior. It lacks only explicit failure-mode or edge-case guidance, which is a minor gap at this simplicity level.
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% because the url parameter already describes itself as a 'Canonical TheJournal.ie article URL.' The description repeats the canonical-URL requirement without adding formats, examples, or pruning rules, so the schema remains the primary semantic source.
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 concrete verb+resource pair ('Get TheJournal.ie article content') and then specifies the exact output: metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL. This clearly identifies the tool's target and differentiates it from headline, author, and section siblings.
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 makes the usage context clear: call this when you need the content of a single canonical TheJournal.ie article URL. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.