Retrieve an IOL author's public profile, including name, role, photo, and recent articles, by slug or canonical author URL.
Get an IOL author profile. Returns one IOL author's public profile: name, role, photo, and the recent articles listed on their page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Canonical iol.co.za/authors/<slug>/ URL; alternative to slug | |
| slug | No | Author slug, e.g. xolile-mtembu |
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 does state that the profile is 'public' and enumerates returned fields, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose failure behavior for unknown authors, whether 'recent articles' is paginated or truncated, rate limits, or any other operational traits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.
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 with zero wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence efficiently enumerates the return fields. Every word earns its place.
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?
Since there is no output schema, the description reasonably covers return values (name, role, photo, recent articles). However, the ambiguity around two fully optional parameters, the absence of error-handling behavior, and no limit details for 'recent articles' leave meaningful gaps. Adequate for a simple read tool, but not complete.
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 the schema already documents both parameters well ('Canonical iol.co.za/authors/<slug>/ URL; alternative to slug' and 'Author slug, e.g. xolile-mtembu'). Per the rubric, the baseline is 3 when schema carries the weight. The tool description itself adds no parameter detail 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get an IOL author profile') and specifies the return payload (name, role, photo, recent articles). It clearly identifies the IOL publisher and author resource, which inherently separates it from sibling tools like iol_article, iol_headlines, iol_news, and iol_sections, though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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 alternatives, nor on prerequisites. Critically, the schema makes both 'url' and 'slug' optional, but the description never clarifies that at least one is needed, when to prefer one over the other, or what happens if neither is provided. Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.