Fetch one Independent author's public profile: name, job title, bio, X/Twitter handle, and their recent articles. Use independent_article for one story's content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Canonical independent.co.uk/author/<slug> URL; alternative to slug | |
| slug | No | Author slug, e.g. lizzie-dearden |
| 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. lizzie-dearden"Input schema / properties / url / descriptionAdded value: +"Canonical independent.co.uk/author/<slug> URL; alternative to slug"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 adds that the response bundles profile fields plus 'recent articles,' but says nothing about how many articles, pagination, or freshness, so it adds only modest behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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 primary purpose is front-loaded before the disambiguation clause. 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?
With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete for correct invocation. The only minor gap is not indicating the scope/count of the embedded 'recent articles,' which is a small omission.
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% (both url and slug are documented, including 'alternative to slug' and an example slug), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond it, making the baseline 3 correct.
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 Independent author's public profile') and enumerates the payload (name, job title, bio, X/Twitter handle, recent articles). It also names the sibling it is not (independent_article), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.
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 independent_article for one story's content,' which cleanly separates profile-level from article-level intent. It lacks exclusion guidance for the other siblings (independent_headlines/news/sections) and doesn't explain the slug-vs-url choice, so it falls short of a 5.
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.