One Hollywood Reporter staff writer or contributor's public profile: name, job title, headshot, biography, social/contact links, and one page of their recent articles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| page | 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 and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral detail beyond the annotations: only 'one page of their recent articles' is returned per call, which tells the agent output is paginated rather than complete. No auth or rate-limit context is given.
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 enumerating the returned fields with zero filler. Nothing redundant or padded.
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-value detail is not needed. However, with two undocumented parameters and an open-world fetch, the description should at minimum clarify the expected url form; that gap leaves the agent guessing how to invoke it 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 description coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description must carry the load. It hints that a 'page' concept exists, but never explains what the required url should point to (an author profile URL vs. an article URL) or how page interacts with the article list.
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 (a Hollywood Reporter staff writer/contributor profile) and enumerates its contents, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling hollywoodreporter_article or hollywoodreporter_headlines tools, but the resource type is unambiguous.
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 only implied: the content list suggests you call this when you need biographical/contact data for a bylined writer. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of how to obtain the required url, and no alternatives named.
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.
