Retrieve a PCMag author's public profile, including bio, expertise, social links, and recent articles, using a slug or canonical URL.
Get a PCMag author profile. Returns one PCMag author's public profile: name, role, biography, areas of expertise, social links, and their recent articles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Canonical pcmag.com/authors/<slug> URL; alternative to slug | |
| slug | No | Author slug, e.g. michael-kan |
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 carries the full burden. It states the tool 'returns' a profile, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose error behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. For a simple fetch tool, this is minimal disclosure; the description doesn't add context beyond the obvious.
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 core purpose and immediately followed by the return fields. No wasted words; every element 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?
The description lists the key return fields, which is useful given there is no output schema. It mentions 'recent articles' but does not specify limits or pagination. For a straightforward author profile tool, this is reasonably complete, though more detail on response structure or edge cases would be better.
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%—both 'url' and 'slug' have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameters, such as which to prefer or how they interact. Since the schema already documents them, the baseline of 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 the tool gets a PCMag author profile and lists the exact data fields returned (name, role, biography, areas of expertise, social links, recent articles). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcmag_article (which fetches articles) and other site-specific author tools.
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 this tool is for PCMag author profiles specifically, which is clear from the name and wording. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, e.g., 'use pcgamer_author for PC Gamer authors.' The purpose is evident but lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.