Fetch an Independent author's public profile by slug or URL, returning name, job title, bio, X/Twitter handle, and recent articles.
Get an Independent author profile. Returns one Independent author's public profile: name, job title, bio, X/Twitter handle, and their recent articles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Canonical independent.co.uk/author/<slug> URL; alternative to slug | |
| slug | No | Author slug, e.g. lizzie-dearden |
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 discloses that the tool returns a public profile, implying read-only behavior, but does not mention any other behavioral aspects such as error conditions, rate limits, or whether recent articles are paginated. This is adequate for a simple read operation 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 concise, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the return fields listed in the second. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately structured for a simple retrieval tool.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the return content and the resource. It does not describe potential errors or edge cases, but for a straightforward profile fetch this is a minor gap.
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%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which explicitly notes the URL is an alternative to the slug. Therefore, the baseline score of 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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Independent author profile'), and enumerates the returned fields. It is clear and distinct from other site-specific tool names, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling author tools; the tool name itself provides the differentiation.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other author profiles (e.g., nzherald_author, apnews_author) or on how to choose between the 'url' and 'slug' parameters. The description lacks any exclusions or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.