Fetch an Entertainment Weekly author's profile and recent articles from a canonical URL. Returns name, job title, biography, and article list.
Get an Entertainment Weekly author profile. Returns one Entertainment Weekly contributor's public profile (name, job title, biography) and their recent articles from a canonical author URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical ew.com/author/<slug> or ew.com/<slug>-<id> profile 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, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Get', 'Returns') and lists the return content, which is adequate for a simple profile fetch. However, it does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or limits on the number of 'recent articles' returned, so it is only minimally transparent.
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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Get an Entertainment Weekly author profile') and then adds the return details, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description reasonably covers the return value (profile fields and recent articles). It does not specify how many recent articles are returned or their ordering, which is a minor gap, but overall it gives enough 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%: the schema already fully documents the single 'url' parameter and its accepted formats. The description merely repeats 'canonical author URL' without adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.
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 and resource ('Get an Entertainment Weekly author profile') and details the return contents, making it clear this is an author-profile tool distinct from article or headline tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling author tools or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Usage context is implied rather than explicit: the description implies you should use this tool when you need an author's profile and recent articles, but it gives no explicit when-not guidance or mention of alternative tools. It also relies on the parameter description to convey the required URL form.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.