Retrieve a Globe and Mail reporter's profile including name, title, bio, headshot, social links, and recent articles from their author URL.
Get a Globe and Mail reporter profile. Returns one Globe and Mail reporter's public profile: name, job title, location, biography, headshot, contact/social links, and their recent articles from a canonical author URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Globe and Mail author URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool requires a canonical author URL and returns a specific set of fields, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, any potential errors, or limitations on the number of recent articles. For a simple fetch operation, this is adequate 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?
Two sentences, no filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the returned fields are listed clearly. Every sentence contributes.
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 enumerates the fields returned, which is helpful. It specifies the input format (canonical URL). It does not specify the number of recent articles or pagination, but for a profile endpoint this is minor. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct usage.
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 coverage is 100% with the parameter description 'Canonical Globe and Mail author URL'. The tool description echoes this by saying 'from a canonical author URL', adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.
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 it retrieves a Globe and Mail reporter profile and enumerates the specific fields returned (name, job title, location, biography, headshot, links, recent articles). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like globeandmail_article (article retrieval) and other publications' author tools.
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 makes it clear this is for reporter profiles, and the inclusion of 'reporter profile' in the first sentence gives context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., globeandmail_article) or when not to use this tool. Still, the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.