zdf-mcp

zdf_get_article

Fetch the full text of a ZDF heute article using its zdfheute.de link or slug, enabling complete news story reading and analysis.

Instructions

Full text of one ZDF heute article. article: a zdfheute.de article link (e.g. https://www.zdfheute.de/politik/.../... -100.html) or a bare path/slug.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "article": "<article>"
    },
    "name": "zdf_get_article"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`article`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden; it does signal the return is 'full text' and that the input may be a URL or bare slug/path. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, truncation, or paywalled/unavailable articles, which are the behavioral traits that matter for a fetch tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then immediately the parameter format. The inline example URL introduces some visual noise from line wrapping but every element conveys needed information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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 an output schema, the description covers what is fetched and how to specify the target. Remaining gaps (failure modes when an article is unavailable, whether the text is truncated) are modest given the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter is merely named 'article', but the description compensates well by defining accepted formats and giving a concrete example URL plus the bare path/slug option. Minor gap: no statement about URL variants (mobile, tracking params) or slug normalization.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

'Full text of one ZDF heute article' gives a specific verb (retrieve full text) and resource (one article), clearly separable from siblings like zdf_headlines or zdf_search_news that list or search. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling for differentiation, so a 4 rather than 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: use this when you already have an article link or slug and need the body text rather than a listing. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative for cases where the user has only a topic or query instead of a URL.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server