Fetch one Motley Fool author by canonical profile URL and return the author's name, biography, image, and recent articles. Use this after finding the author URL on a public article or profile page.
| 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 and network behavior are covered. The description adds that input must be a canonical profile URL (not a name) and lists the returned fields, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or behavior with non-canonical/missing URLs.
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, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the usage condition. No filler or 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?
With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it still summarizes them. For a one-parameter read tool the definition is essentially complete, missing only minor edge-case guidance.
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 'url' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema says only 'string'. The description compensates meaningfully by specifying it must be a 'canonical profile URL,' implying a fully-qualified profile link rather than a name or slug, though it offers no format example.
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 gives a specific verb (Fetch), a specific resource (one Motley Fool author), the identifying key (canonical profile URL), and even enumerates the returned fields (name, biography, image, recent articles). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like motleyfool_article, motleyfool_headlines, and motleyfool_news.
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?
It states the triggering context: 'Use this after finding the author URL on a public article or profile page,' which tells the agent the prerequisite flow. There is no explicit when-not or alternative named, but the usage context is clear and actionable.
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.
