Fetch a Motley Fool author profile from a canonical URL, returning name, biography, image, and recent articles as JSON.
Get a Motley Fool author profile. Returns a public Fool author's name, biography, image, and recent articles from a canonical author URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical The Motley Fool author URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only fetch and the description usefully discloses the return content (name, bio, image, recent articles), but it says nothing about pagination of 'recent articles', permissions, or rate limits.
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?
Two tight sentences with no filler, and the operation is front-loaded before the return-value detail. Every clause 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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. The main omission is any hint about volume or pagination of 'recent articles'.
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% for the single url parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds only mild framing ('canonical author URL'), which is essentially a restatement of the schema description; baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (Motley Fool author profile), then enumerates the returned fields (name, biography, image, recent articles). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like motleyfool_article or motleyfool_headlines, though it does not explicitly name them.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. It notes the input is a 'canonical author URL' but never says when this profile tool should be preferred over motleyfool_article or how to obtain the required URL.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.