Fetch a Collider author's byline metadata, biography, social links, and recent articles from their canonical author URL. Returns clean profile data for research or content workflows.
Get a Collider author profile. Returns a Collider author's byline metadata, biography, social links, and recent articles from a canonical author URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Collider author 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 burden of disclosure. It clearly states what the tool returns (byline metadata, biography, social links, recent articles), which is helpful. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. For a read-only tool this is acceptable but not exhaustive.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes specific return values. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail; every part 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete enough: it identifies the resource, the input, and the nature of the output. It does not mention possible error states or required URL format nuances, but those are minor gaps for a straightforward author profile fetch.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'url' with the description 'Canonical Collider author URL'. The tool description does not add any additional semantic detail beyond that. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.
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 ('Collider author profile'), and lists the specific data returned (byline metadata, biography, social links, recent articles). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the many other *_author tools by naming Collider explicitly.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely describes the tool's function without mentioning exclusions or related tools. An agent is left to infer that this is the tool for Collider authors based solely on the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.