Fetch an i author profile from a canonical URL, returning name, biography, social links, and recent articles for quick research.
Get an i author profile. Returns an i author's name, biography, social links, and most recent articles from a canonical author URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical i 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 disclosure burden. It clearly signals a read operation via 'Get'/'Returns' and discloses the output scope (name, biography, social links, most recent articles), but it omits any failure modes, pagination/limits, or URL-format specifics.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and resource come first, followed by a compact list of returned content, so an agent can parse it 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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential return values: name, biography, social links, and recent articles. It is slightly thin on the exact shape of 'social links' or how many 'most recent articles' are returned, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.
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%, and the description only restates the 'canonical author URL' concept already present in the schema. It adds no additional format, example, or clarification beyond what the schema provides.
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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('i author profile'), then enumerates the returned data. It is clear about what the tool does but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling author tools like nzherald_author or apnews_author.
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 only usage signal is the 'canonical author URL' prerequisite, which implies when the tool can be used. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose inews_author over other publication-specific author tools, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.