Fetch an IOL author's public profile and recent listed articles by slug or canonical author url. Use iol_article for one story or iol_headlines for current headlines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Canonical iol.co.za/authors/<slug>/ URL; alternative to slug | |
| slug | No | Author slug, e.g. xolile-mtembu |
| 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. xolile-mtembu"Input schema / properties / url / descriptionAdded value: +"Canonical iol.co.za/authors/<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 safety profile is covered. The description adds that the profile is 'public' and articles are 'recent listed' ones, which is useful scope context, but no additional behavioral traits (pagination, ordering, rate limits) are disclosed, and an output schema covers the return shape.
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 tight sentences: the capability is front-loaded, followed immediately by routing guidance. No redundant filler.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers purpose, accepted identifiers, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
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%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description restates 'by slug or canonical author url' without adding format or disambiguation semantics beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('IOL author's public profile and recent listed articles'), and specifies the two lookup keys (slug or canonical url). An agent can distinguish it from iol_article and iol_headlines without opening the 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 to alternatives: 'Use iol_article for one story or iol_headlines for current headlines.' This gives the conditions that select siblings, though it stops short of a full when-to-use/when-not breakdown (e.g., no note about wanting full article bodies).
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.