Fetches a New York Times contributor's profile and recent articles from their author URL. Provides name, tagline, about/contact info for any NYT byline.
Get a New York Times contributor profile. Returns one New York Times contributor's public byline page: name, tagline, About/Contact panels, and their recent articles from a canonical author URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical NYT author URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions the returned data is a 'public byline page' and lists contents, implying a read-only operation, but it does not disclose error handling, required URL format beyond 'canonical', or limitations (e.g., number of articles). It is not contradictory or misleading, but lacks depth.
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 purpose and then lists the output components. There is no fluff, and it is easily scannable. It could be split into two sentences but is still well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides a reasonable overview of the response content. However, it lacks specifics about the 'recent articles' (e.g., titles, links, count) and does not clarify what constitutes a 'canonical' URL or handle edge cases. It is adequate but not exhaustive.
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, and the description repeats that it is a 'canonical author URL'. It adds no additional meaning (e.g., URL patterns, expected input format) beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?
The description clearly states it retrieves a New York Times contributor profile and enumerates the specific components returned (name, tagline, About/Contact panels, recent articles). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nyt_article and nyt_headlines, and among author tools it is explicit about the NYT scope.
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 when to use it (when you need a contributor profile) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It does not state that other NYT tools should be used for articles or sections, leaving the agent to infer. This is acceptable but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.