Fetch a Mint author's byline, biography, and social links directly from a canonical profile URL.
Get a Mint author profile. Returns a Mint author's byline metadata, biography, and social links from a canonical author profile URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Mint author URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description clearly indicates a read operation through 'Get' and 'Returns', and lists the data categories returned. With no annotations, it does not address potential failure modes, authentication, rate limits, or the exact URL format, but the behavior is simple and non-destructive.
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 two sentences with no wasted words, front-loading the core action and resource. Every sentence contributes essential information about output and input.
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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key outcome categories and the required input source. It does not explain error behavior or URL structure beyond 'canonical', but these are minor gaps for a simple fetch.
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?
The single parameter 'url' is fully documented in the schema as 'Canonical Mint author URL', and the description reinforces this by referencing the canonical author profile URL without adding format examples or additional constraints. With 100% schema coverage, 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?
The description uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('Mint author profile'), and specifies the returned content: byline metadata, biography, and social links. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, though the tool name already provides publication-level 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?
The description implies the usage context by requiring a 'canonical author profile URL' as input, which signals when this tool is appropriate. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over the many other author-profile tools in the sibling list, and no when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.