Fetch a BBC News correspondent profile by author URL or slug, including the name, short bio, and recent articles. Article dates use YYYY-MM-DD when the page provides a full date; relative dates may be omitted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the returned fields (name, bio, recent articles) and a date-format caveat that dates are YYYY-MM-DD only when the page provides a full date, with relative dates possibly omitted.
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 tight sentences with zero waste. The core action and input forms are front-loaded, and the date-format caveat follows as secondary detail that earns its place by pre-empting a data interpretation question.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, yet the description helpfully summarizes them. For a one-parameter read-only tool this is nearly complete; only the routing relative to sibling tools is left unstated.
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 0% and the single 'url' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by stating it accepts either an author URL or a slug, which materially clarifies how to populate the required parameter.
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 and resource: 'Fetch a BBC News correspondent profile by author URL or slug,' and lists the payload (name, short bio, recent articles). It is clearly distinct from a generic article fetch, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like bbc_article or bbc_search.
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 by the resource ('correspondent profile'), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. bbc_article for a single story, bbc_search for discovery). An agent must infer the routing on its own.
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.
