author_finderFind the email address of an article's author from a given URL. Useful for outreach to content creators and journalists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL of the article or blog post | |
| webhook_url | No | Optional webhook URL to receive results asynchronously |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "data"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the basic safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the purpose, such as potential failure modes, whether results may be missing, or how the optional webhook affects execution.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a useful application context without 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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with a read-only annotation and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and use case. It does not mention limitations or compare with sibling tools, but these are not strictly required for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents both 'url' and 'webhook_url'. The description refers to the URL concept but adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action ('Find the email address'), the resource ('an article's author'), and the input ('from a given URL'). It is specific enough for an agent to understand what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like mpp_author_finder or email_finder.
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 provides an intended use case ('Useful for outreach to content creators and journalists'), which gives some contextual guidance. However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as email_finder or person_enrichment, and it offers no exclusions or conditions.
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.