Fetch a Game Rant author's byline, bio, social links, and recent articles from their canonical URL. Get structured author data for research or content workflows.
Get a Game Rant author profile. Returns a Game Rant author's byline metadata, biography, social links, and recent articles from a canonical author URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Game Rant 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, the description carries the full burden. It accurately indicates this is a read operation ('Get', 'Returns') and lists the content types, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any error handling, pagination, or authentication requirements, and it implies the URL must be 'canonical' without explaining consequences of non-canonical input. This is adequate but not rich.
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. It front-loads the core action ('Get a Game Rant author profile') and then lists the returned data. There is no extraneous information, and every phrase contributes to understanding. It is concise without sacrificing clarity.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return contents, which it does by listing byline metadata, biography, social links, and recent articles. However, it does not specify the format, pagination, or any limitations, and it lacks usage differentiation from the many sibling author tools. For a simple read tool, it is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 already provides 100% coverage for the single 'url' parameter. The description adds the qualifier 'canonical author URL', which conveys that the URL must be the canonical form, adding meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Canonical Game Rant author URL'. This clarification helps the agent understand the expected format.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a Game Rant author profile' and specifies what it returns (byline metadata, biography, social links, recent articles). This is a specific verb+resource combination, and the mention of 'Game Rant' distinguishes it from other author tools for different sites. It is unambiguous and not a tautology.
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 (e.g., 'use for author profiles only, not for articles') or refer to sibling tools like gamerant_article. The only context is the name itself, which implies the purpose, but the description offers no explicit usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.