Fetch a PhoneArena staff author's profile, role, biography, image, social links, and recent article items by slug or canonical url. Use phonearena_article for one story.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Canonical phonearena.com/team/<slug> URL; alternative to slug | |
| slug | No | Author username, e.g. sebastian.f |
| 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 username, e.g. sebastian.f"Input schema / properties / url / descriptionAdded value: +"Canonical phonearena.com/team/<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 safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the shape of the response (profile + recent items) but says nothing about pagination, how many "recent article items" are returned, or whether lookups can fail for unknown slugs.
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 filler, with the resource and its fields front-loaded and the disambiguation clause last. 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the read-only/open-world profile. The definition is complete enough to call correctly, with only minor gaps around lookup failure behavior and result limits.
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 (`url` and `slug`) are already documented. The description restates the two lookup keys but adds no format detail, such as whether `url` and `slug` can be combined or which wins. 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?
Specific verb ("Fetch") plus resource ("PhoneArena staff author's profile") and an enumeration of the payload (role, biography, image, social links, recent article items). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from phonearena_article, so an agent can route between them 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?
States the lookup keys (`slug` or canonical `url`) and names the sibling to use instead when the intent is a single story. No explicit when-not guidance beyond that routing hint, but the context is clear.
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.