get_newsRetrieve a news post's content and comments in Markdown by supplying its news ID, so you can read and reference the full discussion.
Get a news post's content and comments as Markdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| news_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| url | No | ||
| date | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| date_text | No | ||
| attachments | No | ||
| content_markdown | Yes | ||
| comments_markdown | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them, that the response bundles comments alongside the post content and renders as Markdown, but says nothing about not-found errors or auth requirements.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler that leads with the action and ends with the output format. Every word 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 one-parameter read tool with a full annotation set and an output schema, the description covers enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is minor: it does not point the agent to list_news as the source of valid news_id values.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden for news_id, yet it says nothing about the parameter, such as where to obtain the ID or its format. 'News Id' in the schema is self-descriptive but the description adds no meaning beyond it.
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?
States a specific verb (get), a specific resource (a news post), and even the return shape (content and comments as Markdown), so the singular 'a news post' implicitly contrasts with its sibling list_news. It never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion conditions, and no mention of alternatives such as list_news (to find an ID) or get_message (for other message types). Retrieval by ID is only implied by the verb 'Get'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.