Retrieve an E! News author page from a canonical URL to get the writer's name and the articles listed on their page.
Get an E! News author page. Returns an E! News writer's name and the articles listed on their author page, from a canonical author URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical E! News 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the return content (writer name and articles) and the input constraint ('canonical author URL'), which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential errors, pagination behavior, or any other caveats. It is minimal but not misleading.
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, tight sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get an E! News author page') and includes the essential return information. No wasted words.
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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input requirement and the expected return. It does not explain the article list format or pagination, but these are not critical for a basic author page fetch. The description is adequate for an agent to call it correctly.
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, which already describes it as 'Canonical E! News author URL'. The description adds 'from a canonical author URL', reinforcing the constraint but not adding new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Get an E! News author page' and specifies the output (writer's name and articles). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, and the 'E! News' qualifier distinguishes it from other author tools in the sibling list, though it does not explicitly call out the distinction.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other author tools (e.g., nzherald_author, apnews_author). It does not mention prerequisites, canonical URL requirements beyond the parameter description, or any exclusions. The agent is left to infer from the name that this is for E! News specifically.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.