Retrieve a Medical News Today author's public profile and recent articles by providing either the author slug or profile URL.
Get a Medical News Today author profile. Returns an author's public profile and recent articles. Supply either the author slug or profile URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Public author profile URL | |
| slug | No | Author slug including numeric id, e.g. peter-brown-1595 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a read that returns a profile plus recent articles, but says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or what happens when neither identifier is supplied. Adequate but thin for an annotation-free tool.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by return content and input guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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 simple two-param read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, and the general shape of the response. The only gap is that 'recent articles' is not scoped (count, pagination), which is minor here.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely useful semantics by framing url and slug as alternatives ('Supply either...'), which the schema itself does not state. It stops short of clarifying precedence if both are passed.
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 and resource ('Get a Medical News Today author profile') and clarifies the payload ('profile and recent articles'). It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly contrast with the many sibling *_author tools, leaving the agent to infer differentiation from the name.
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 specifies that the caller should supply either the slug or the URL, which is useful invocation guidance, but it gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context relative to alternatives (e.g., search/headlines tools). Usage is implied rather than framed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.