Fetches a Medical News Today author's public profile, biography and recent article links. Provide a slug or profile URL to retrieve one person's byline page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Public author profile URL | |
| slug | No | Author slug including numeric id, e.g. peter-brown-1595 |
| 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 including numeric id, e.g. peter-brown-1595"Input schema / properties / url / descriptionAdded value: +"Public author profile 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 useful content disclosure (profile, biography, recent article links) but says nothing about pagination of the article list, rate limits, or behavior on an unknown slug; with the annotation bar lowered this is an adequate 3.
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 with the resource and payload front-loaded; the second sentence is partially redundant with "author's public profile" in the first, but nothing is padded or off-topic.
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 and annotations cover the read-only/open-world profile, so the description need not explain return values. It is complete enough for a two-parameter lookup tool; only minor details (how many "recent" articles, behavior on an invalid slug) are absent.
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 the slug format example is already in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond it by making clear that slug and URL are alternative ways to identify the same person rather than inputs to be supplied together, which is a real disambiguation for a 0-required-param tool.
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?
The description names a specific verb and resource ("Fetches a Medical News Today author's public profile") and even enumerates the payload: biography and recent article links. That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from the other medicalnewstoday_* tools, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with medicalnewstoday_article.
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?
"Provide a slug or profile URL to retrieve one person's byline page" implies the usage context and the acceptable input forms, but there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative (the article or headlines tools) if the agent actually wants content rather than an author page.
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.