Fetch one Economic Times reporter's public profile: name, job title, biography, headshot, and their recent articles. Use economictimes_article for one story's content. Use economictimes_news for current outlet feeds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Economic Times author URL |
| 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 / url / descriptionAdded value: +"Canonical Economic Times author URL"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 the return shape (profile fields plus recent articles, which is already in the output schema) but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or how 'recent' articles are scoped. 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?
Three short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the alternative routing following immediately. Every sentence 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?
For a single-argument read tool with an output schema and covering annotations, the description is essentially complete: it says what comes back and how to route around it. Minor omission is any note on how many recent articles are returned, but the output schema can carry that.
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% for the single url parameter, and the description adds no syntax, format, or resolution guidance beyond what the schema's 'Canonical Economic Times author URL' already conveys. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 Economic Times reporter's public profile), enumerates the returned fields including recent articles, and implicitly contrasts with related feed/article tools. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling *_author, *_article, and *_news tools without opening a 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?
Names two alternatives explicitly and gives the condition for each ('economictimes_article for one story's content', 'economictimes_news for current outlet feeds'). The when-to-use for this tool is implied by contrast rather than stated outright, so it falls just short of fully explicit routing.
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.