Retrieve a Mirror author profile via slug or URL, returning their name, job title, bio, email, X/Twitter handle, and recent articles.
Get a Mirror author profile. Returns one Mirror author's public profile: name, job title, bio, email, X/Twitter handle, and their recent articles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Canonical mirror.co.uk/authors/<slug>/ URL; alternative to slug | |
| slug | No | Author slug, e.g. neil-shaw |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return contents but omits important behavioral details like whether only one of url or slug is required, error handling, pagination of articles, or any rate-limit implications. For a tool with no structured safety annotations, this is a significant 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It includes the key return fields without extraneous words. 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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description lists the expected return fields, which is adequate. However, it does not clarify that exactly one of url or slug should be provided, nor does it mention how recent articles are returned (e.g., count, order). This leaves minor gaps.
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% for both parameters (url and slug), and the descriptions are self-explanatory. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool gets a Mirror author profile, naming the specific publication and listing the returned fields (name, job title, bio, email, X/Twitter handle, recent articles). This distinguishes it from other author tools for different publications.
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 tool is for Mirror authors but does not explicitly state when to use it compared to alternatives. No exclusions or references to sibling author tools are given, leaving the agent to infer the context from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.