Fetch an IGN author profile from a www.ign.com/person URL to retrieve their name, title, location, bio, social links, and recent articles in structured JSON.
Get an IGN author profile. Returns one IGN author's public profile: name, job title, location, biography, social links, and their recent articles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical www.ign.com/person/<username> 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It states the profile is 'public' (implying a safe read operation) and specifies exactly what is returned: name, job title, location, biography, social links, and recent articles. It does not cover rate limits or error behavior, but for a simple public profile fetch this is strong coverage.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by a useful field list. Every sentence contributes value and there is no filler or repetition.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it identifies the input pattern via the schema and details the return content in prose. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result 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?
The input schema already fully documents the single parameter with 100% coverage, including the expected canonical URL format. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('IGN author profile') and differentiates from sibling IGN tools like ign_article by naming the target entity type. It also enumerates the profile fields returned, leaving no doubt about the tool's function.
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 is implied: an agent should call this when it needs an IGN author's public profile and recent articles. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as ign_article or other authored-content tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.