Extract The Next Web article content from a canonical URL, returning metadata and body paragraphs for research, analysis, or summarization.
Get The Next Web article content. Returns public The Next Web article metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical thenextweb.com article URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the returned data is 'public' and read-oriented ('Get', 'Returns'), which conveys a safe read operation, but it says nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, error behavior for non-canonical or paywalled URLs, or how large the body payload may be.
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 with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence overlaps slightly with the first ('article content' / 'metadata and body paragraphs'), but the redundancy is minimal and the structure is easy to scan.
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 and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it fetches, the required input form, and the shape of the response. Remaining gaps (auth, failure modes, truncation) are minor for a straightforward article fetcher.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'url' as a canonical thenextweb.com article URL. The description merely repeats 'canonical article URL' without adding format, example, or validation detail, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get The Next Web article content') and specifies what is returned ('metadata and body paragraphs'), which is enough to separate it from the sibling taxonomy tools (thenextweb_headlines, thenextweb_news, thenextweb_sections). It does not, however, explicitly name those alternatives, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
Usage is only implied: by requiring a 'canonical article URL' it signals that this tool is for retrieving an already-known article rather than discovering content, but it never states when to use it versus thenextweb_headlines/news/sections, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the URL format.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.