Fetch a PCMag author's public profile, expertise, social links, and recent articles. Use pcmag_article for one story or pcmag_headlines for current story cards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Canonical pcmag.com/authors/<slug> URL; alternative to slug | |
| slug | No | Author slug, e.g. michael-kan |
| 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. michael-kan"Input schema / properties / url / descriptionAdded value: +"Canonical pcmag.com/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 the agent knows this is a safe, external read. The description's added value is mainly a listing of returned fields, which the existing output schema already covers; it discloses nothing about lookup failures, rate limits, or identifier requirements.
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: capability first, disambiguation second. No filler and the routing information is placed where an agent will read it.
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 covering returns and annotations covering safety, the description only needs purpose and routing, which it delivers. The one gap is that 0 parameters are marked required, yet a caller must supply either url or slug; the description never says so.
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 both url and slug documented in-schema as an either/or identifier pair. The description adds no parameter-level guidance (e.g., that at least one of url/slug is effectively required despite required=0), so 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 (a PCMag author's public profile) and enumerates the payload: expertise, social links, recent articles. This clearly separates it from the article- and headline-level siblings without requiring the schema to be opened.
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 names two alternatives with the conditions that select them ('pcmag_article for one story', 'pcmag_headlines for current story cards'), which is strong routing. It does not state the positive trigger for this tool (when an author profile is needed) or mention the other pcmag siblings, so it falls just short of full when/when-not coverage.
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.