One CNA correspondent's or contributor's public profile: name, job title, biography, contact email, and their recent bylined articles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Canonical channelnewsasia.com/author/<slug> URL; alternative to slug | |
| slug | No | Author slug, e.g. aqil-haziq-mahmud |
| 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.
Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionAdded value: +"Author slug, e.g. aqil-haziq-mahmud"Input schema / properties / url / descriptionAdded value: +"Canonical channelnewsasia.com/author/<slug> URL; alternative to slug"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context (single author, public profile, includes recent bylined articles) but discloses no auth needs, rate limits, or behavior when the identifier resolves to nothing.
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 with zero filler; the resource and its returned content are stated immediately, and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.
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 needn't describe return values in detail, and annotations cover the read-only/open-world profile. It is complete enough for an author-lookup tool, though it omits any fallback or error behavior when the slug/URL is invalid.
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 100% and both parameters (url, slug) are fully documented in the schema, so the description is not required to explain them. It adds no format or precedence detail beyond what the schema already states, matching the baseline for a high-coverage schema.
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 ('one CNA correspondent's or contributor's public profile') and enumerates exactly what is returned (name, job title, biography, contact email, recent bylined articles). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like cna_article, cna_headlines, and cna_news, which operate on articles rather than people.
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 alternatives (e.g., using a slug vs. a full URL, which the schema documents instead). The agent is left to infer that this is the author-detail lookup rather than an article or search tool.
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.