Retrieve a 9to5Mac author's profile including name, avatar, biography, social links, and recent articles from a canonical author URL.
Get a 9to5Mac author profile. Returns a 9to5Mac author's name, avatar, biography, social links, and recent articles from a canonical author URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical 9to5Mac 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, the description carries the burden, and it does communicate that this is a read-only retrieval ('Get', 'Returns') and that the input must be a canonical author URL. It does not discuss possible failures, pagination of recent articles, or other behavioral caveats, but for a simple profile retrieval this is acceptable.
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 short sentences with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded before the return list. Every clause adds useful information.
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-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers both the required input and the main output fields, so an agent has enough to invoke it correctly. It stops just short of a 5 by omitting any detail on how many recent articles are returned or how canonical URLs look.
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 describes the single parameter at 100% coverage ('Canonical 9to5Mac author URL'), and the description only repeats 'canonical author URL' without adding format, example, or normalization details. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation.
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 9to5Mac author profile') and enumerates the returned fields (name, avatar, biography, social links, recent articles). This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling article/headlines/section tools in the same domain.
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 intended use is implied by the output: an agent should call this when it needs a 9to5Mac author's profile data rather than an article or section. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so guidance is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.