Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official

iol_author

Fetch an IOL author profile by slug or canonical URL, returning name, role, image, and up to 25 recent articles with titles, summaries, sections, and dates.

Instructions

Get an IOL author profile. Returns an IOL author profile, identified by slug (such as xolile-mtembu) or a canonical iol.co.za/authors/<slug>/ url; provide exactly one. The response has the name, role and image_url when present, and up to 25 recent articles with title, URL, summary, section and a published_date taken from the article URL. Unknown authors return not found.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoCanonical iol.co.za/authors/<slug>/ URL; alternative to slug
slugNoAuthor slug, e.g. xolile-mtembu

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.5

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it enumerates returned fields, caps recent articles at 25, notes that published_date is derived from the article URL, and states that unknown authors return not found. It omits only minor operational details like rate limits or caching behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then details parameters, return shape, and error behavior in three efficient sentences. There is slight redundancy in restating 'IOL author profile' immediately after 'Get an IOL author profile', but no significant wasted text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain the return and behavior, which it does thoroughly. It covers the main fields, article cap, date derivation, and the not-found case, leaving only niche operational details unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful value by explicitly requiring exactly one of slug or url and by giving a concrete slug example. The schema already documents both fields individually, so this is a modest but real improvement.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get an IOL author profile' and details the return payload. It is clearly distinguishable from generic article-fetching siblings by resource type, but never explicitly names an alternative tool or draws a boundary against them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as iol_article or other IOL endpoints. The only usage instruction is the parameter constraint 'provide exactly one', which concerns input format rather than tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools