Fetch a BBC News correspondent's public profile from a canonical URL, including name, short bio, and recent articles.
Get a BBC News correspondent's profile. Returns a BBC News correspondent's public profile: name, short bio, and their recent articles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical BBC News correspondent URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description does not disclose any potential limitations such as URL requirements, error behavior, rate limits, or what 'recent articles' means. This is under-informed for a tool without annotation safety hints.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately states what the tool does and what it returns. Every word adds value, and the key information is front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant phrasing.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a basic overview of the returned fields but lacks important context such as how to obtain a canonical URL, the number of recent articles returned, or any other constraints. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.
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% for the single 'url' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Canonical BBC News correspondent URL' – it neither clarifies the URL format nor provides examples, so it does not augment the schema.
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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('BBC News correspondent's profile'), and explicitly lists the returned data (name, bio, recent articles). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bbc_article or bbc_headlines, which serve different purposes.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent decide between bbc_author and other BBC tools or author tools from other sources.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.