Fetch one Daily Wire writer or contributor's public profile and recent articles. Use dailywire_article for one story's metadata and body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Canonical dailywire.com/author/<slug> URL; alternative to slug | |
| slug | No | Author slug, e.g. brent-scher |
| 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. brent-scher"Input schema / properties / url / descriptionAdded value: +"Canonical dailywire.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 that the profile is 'public' and includes 'recent articles,' which is useful content-level context, but says nothing about pagination, how many articles are returned, or ordering. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.
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 sentences, zero waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the sibling redirect. Every clause earns its place.
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 described, and the description covers purpose and the key alternative. It is complete enough to invoke correctly; the only untended detail is the url-vs-slug choice, which the schema already documents.
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 100%, with the url/slug relationship and a slug example fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or precedence detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (Fetch) and resource (one Daily Wire writer/contributor's public profile and recent articles), and names the sibling dailywire_article as what it is not. An agent can distinguish it from dailywire_article, dailywire_headlines, and dailywire_news without opening any schema.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use dailywire_article for one story's metadata and body,' giving a clear alternative and the condition that selects it (author profile vs single story). It does not address the other siblings, but the primary routing decision is covered.
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.