Fetch a Brisbane Times journalist profile by URL to get name, bio, headshot, contact links, and recent story cards.
Get a Brisbane Times journalist profile. Returns one public Brisbane Times /by/<name>-<id> profile with its name, biography, headshot, contact links, and recent story cards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Brisbane Times journalist URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses that the profile is public and lists the returned fields, but it does not address permissions, rate limits, error behavior, or explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only with no side effects.
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 tightly written sentences: the first states the purpose and the second details the returned profile contents. The purpose is front-loaded and there is no 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?
With no output schema, the description appropriately explains what the tool returns: name, biography, headshot, contact links, and recent story cards. For a simple single-URL read tool this is largely complete, though it omits usage context and any edge-case behavior.
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% and there is only one parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing the expected URL pattern (`/by/<name>-<id>`), which clarifies the canonical URL format beyond the schema's concise 'Canonical Brisbane Times journalist URL' label.
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') and resource ('Brisbane Times journalist profile'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It implicitly separates itself from article/news/headline siblings by returning a profile, but it never explicitly names or distinguishes itself from those alternatives.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no comparison to sibling tools such as brisbanetimes_article or brisbanetimes_news. The description only says what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer when it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.