Retrieve a Moneycontrol author's full profile by supplying the canonical URL, returning name, job title, biography, social links, and recent articles.
Get a Moneycontrol author profile. Returns a Moneycontrol author's name, job title, biography (when present), social links, and recent articles from a canonical author URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Moneycontrol author URL |
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 behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context by noting biography is returned 'when present' and articles are 'recent,' and it emphasizes the canonical URL requirement. However, it does not disclose how many recent articles are returned, the response format, error behavior, or what happens with a non-canonical URL.
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 filler: the purpose is front-loaded and the returned data fields are compactly enumerated. Every sentence 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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately captures the input and high-level return values. The main gaps are the lack of a URL format example, no specification of the 'recent articles' limit, and no edge-case or failure behavior, leaving an agent only partially equipped for unusual inputs.
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 schema already fully documents the only parameter at 100% coverage ('Canonical Moneycontrol author URL'). The description partially repeats this wording but adds no additional format, validation, or example details, so it does not meaningfully increase parameter understanding beyond the schema.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get a Moneycontrol author profile') and clearly enumerates the returned fields: name, job title, biography, social links, and recent articles. This separates it from article/news/headline siblings, though it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling as the highest-quality examples do.
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 its usage context: supply a canonical author URL and receive profile data. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over nearby alternatives like moneycontrol_article, moneycontrol_news, or other *_author tools, nor does it give any exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.