One Globe and Mail reporter's public profile: name, job title, location, biography, headshot, contact/social links, and their recent articles from a canonical author URL.
| 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 the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds a useful constraint that the input must be a 'canonical author URL', but says nothing about invalid-URL handling, rate limits, or auth. Adequate but not rich beyond 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?
One tightly written sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though the long field list is largely redundant given an output schema exists.
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 needn't be spelled out, and the read-only nature is covered by annotations. The remaining gap is the sole required parameter: with 0% schema coverage the description should clarify the canonical URL format but does not.
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?
The single required 'url' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and no example or format. The phrase 'from a canonical author URL' is the only signal about what the parameter should contain, which adds some meaning over the bare 'url: string' but leaves format/example unspecified.
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+resource: it retrieves one Globe and Mail reporter's public profile and enumerates the fields returned (name, title, location, bio, headshot, links, recent articles). The 'author' resource is clearly distinct from the sibling globeandmail_article/headlines/news/sections tools, though the description never explicitly says so.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools it should be chosen over. It only describes the payload, leaving the agent to infer that this is the tool for author-level (not article-level) lookups.
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.
