One ProPublica staff/contributor's public profile: name, bio, contact email and social accounts where published, and one page of their recent bylined stories.
| 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 usefully adds that only one page of recent stories is returned, hinting at pagination, but says nothing about the URL's expected form, rate limits, or whether unpublished authors resolve.
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 dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource identity before the field list. Efficient, though the field enumeration could be trimmed since 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 detailed, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description nonetheless conveys contents and pagination. The main gap is the undefined required `url` format, which matters for invocation correctness.
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 must carry the load. It gives meaning to the pagination param ('one page of their recent bylined stories') but leaves the required `url` parameter completely unexplained — no indication that it is an author profile URL vs an ID or slug.
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 resource (a ProPublica staff/contributor's public profile) and enumerates its contents (name, bio, contact email, social accounts, recent bylined stories). This clearly distinguishes it from the article/headlines/news siblings, though it does not explicitly name them.
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?
The resource named implies when the tool is useful (fetching an author's profile), but the description offers no explicit when-to-use statement, no conditions, and no mention of the propublica_article/news/headlines alternatives that might better fit a request for a specific story.
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.
