Retrieve an author profile from The Japan Times by canonical URL to get the public author name and linked article cards; pagination paths are excluded.
Get a The Japan Times author profile. Returns a public author name and linked article cards. Pagination paths are excluded because robots.txt disallows /page/.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical HTTPS /author/<numeric-id>/<slug>/ profile URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It does add real value by disclosing the return content (author name plus linked article cards) and a crawling constraint (pagination excluded per robots.txt). It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or error behavior on malformed URLs, so gaps remain.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then a scope caveat. Every sentence carries information; no padding or restatement of the title.
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 covers purpose, return contents, and a meaningful exclusion. It stops short of noting failure modes or whether the profile is fetched live versus cached, but nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.
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 single 'url' parameter is already fully documented as a canonical HTTPS /author/<numeric-id>/<slug>/ URL. The description adds no format, validation, or example detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('The Japan Times author profile') and describes what comes back (public author name and linked article cards). The site qualifier distinguishes it from the many other *_author siblings, though it never explicitly names japantimes_article or japantimes_headlines as alternatives.
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 only implied: the caller must supply a canonical profile URL, which itself signals the tool is a lookup-by-URL operation. It offers no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to the other japantimes_* tools. The robots.txt pagination note is a useful scope caveat but not a usage rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.