Get a complete profile for a show host/presenter including all their content,
genres covered, shows hosted, and an SEO-ready host page schema.
Args:
host_name: Name of the host/presenter (Arabic or English)
max_items: Maximum number of items to scan per section (default: 20)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host_name | Yes | ||
| max_items | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already marks it as a safe read operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context by mentioning that it scans multiple sections with a per-section item limit (max_items). It does not contradict the annotations.
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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action and result, and the Args section is minimal and scannable. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
With an output schema present and a readOnly annotation, the description covers the essential input semantics and the tool's scanning behavior, which is sufficient for correct invocation. It leaves lookup-failure behavior unspecified, but that is a minor gap given the output schema.
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?
Although the schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), the description's Args block explains both parameters: host_name accepts Arabic or English names, and max_items sets the per-section scan cap with a default of 20. This meaningfully compensates for the schema gap, though it omits edge-case details.
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 with a specific resource: 'Get a complete profile for a show host/presenter' and enumerates the included data (content, genres, shows hosted, SEO-ready host page schema). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_series_details or get_video_details, which target different entities.
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 conveys the intended use case—retrieving an aggregated host/presenter profile—so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving sibling differentiation mostly to the tool name and listed content.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.