Extract public ZDNet article, review, or how-to metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL for structured content retrieval.
Get ZDNet article or review content. Returns public ZDNet article, review or how-to metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical article URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical ZDNet 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 full behavioral burden. It communicates a read-only operation by saying 'Get' and 'Returns', and notes that the content is public. However, it does not disclose error behavior, rate limits, or limitations beyond 'public'.
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 the purpose front-loaded and the output description in the second sentence. There is minor redundancy in repeating 'ZDNet article/review', but no wasted words or unnecessary detail.
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 simple single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately states the input (canonical URL) and the output (metadata and body paragraphs). It doesn't enumerate exact metadata fields, but that level of detail is not necessary for correct invocation.
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 only parameter, 'url', is already fully described in the schema as 'Canonical ZDNet article URL'. The description repeats the same phrase but adds no format or usage details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies with high schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ZDNet article or review content') and states the output as metadata and body paragraphs from a canonical URL. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling listing/headline tools by requiring a canonical article URL, though it doesn't name those alternatives.
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 implied: use this when you have a canonical ZDNet article URL and need its article/review/how-to content. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it relates to sibling tools like zdnet_headlines, zdnet_news, or zdnet_sections.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.