One CBC journalist's public profile: name, job title, biography, photo, profile links, and their most recent articles, from an author slug or canonical cbc.ca/author/ URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| slug | No |
| 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 that the target is a public profile sourced from a slug or canonical cbc.ca URL, which is modestly useful, but it discloses nothing about rate limits, auth, or how 'most recent articles' are bounded. With annotations present the bar is lower, so a 3 fits.
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 that leads with what the tool returns before stating the input form. The field list is slightly dense but each item is relevant, with no wasted prose.
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 no explanation, and read-only semantics are covered by annotations. The remaining gap is the ambiguity around the two optional, mutually exclusive-looking inputs, which the description only partially resolves with 'or'.
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%, so the description carries the burden. It usefully clarifies that the url parameter is a canonical cbc.ca/author/<slug> URL and slug is the author slug, implying the two are alternatives. However, it never states that exactly one is required despite neither being marked required, leaving the agent to guess the selection rule.
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 names a specific resource (one CBC journalist's public profile) and enumerates its contents (name, job title, biography, photo, links, recent articles), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It is distinguishable from the sibling cbc_article/cbc_news tools, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'fetch' and does not name an alternative tool.
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: fetch a journalist profile when you have an author slug or URL. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over cbc_article, no prerequisites, and no exclusions, so the agent must infer the context.
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.
