One Evening Standard author's public profile: name, job title, bio, X/Twitter handle, and their recent articles.
| 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 and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds useful scope detail (profile fields plus recent articles, i.e. it performs two linked lookups), but says nothing about how many recent articles are included, ordering, or pagination.
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 efficient sentence with the resource and return fields front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though the 'One ... author's' construction is slightly awkward for a tool that appears to take two alternate identifiers.
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 not be explained, and the description correctly summarizes them. The fatal gap is input handling: with 0% schema coverage, no required parameters, and two identifier options, the description gives the agent no basis for choosing url vs. slug.
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% and the two parameters (url, slug) are bare strings. The description never mentions either parameter, its expected format (full URL vs. site-relative slug), or whether they are mutually exclusive, leaving the agent to guess at invocation.
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 and resource ('One Evening Standard author's public profile') and enumerates the returned fields, distinguishing it from sibling standard_article/headlines/news. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the generic author-profile pattern present across hundreds of sibling publishers, and the odd 'One' phrasing adds ambiguity about whether it accepts one author at a time.
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 mention of how to obtain the required identifier, and no explicit routing to or away from standard_article or the other standard_* siblings. The agent must infer everything from the name alone.
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.
