Fetch a 9to5Google author profile from a canonical URL to retrieve name, avatar, biography, social links, and recent articles.
Get a 9to5Google author profile. Returns a 9to5Google author's name, avatar, biography, social links, and recent articles from a canonical author URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical 9to5Google author URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It tells the agent this is a retrieval operation and enumerates the returned fields (name, avatar, biography, social links, recent articles), which is useful, but says nothing about rate limits, auth, or whether an unknown URL errors. Adequate for a simple read but not rich.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the return contents; each sentence earns its place and there is 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 one-param, no-output-schema tool, the description compensates by enumerating what is returned, so an agent knows the shape of the result. Missing only edge-case behavior (invalid/non-canonical URL handling), which keeps it just shy of full completeness.
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% and the single param 'url' is documented as 'Canonical 9to5Google author URL'. The description repeats 'canonical author URL' without adding format, example, or validation semantics, so baseline 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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (9to5Google author profile), and distinguishes itself from sibling article/headline tools by naming the author resource. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like ninetofivegoogle_article, but the resource is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is only implied: the description and the required param indicate you must already hold a canonical author URL. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no statement of what to do without a URL (e.g. use headlines/article first).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.