Retrieve a Punch author's byline and recent articles from their canonical author URL.
Get a Punch author archive. Returns a Punch author's byline name and recent articles from a canonical author URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Punch 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 present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the return contents (byline name and recent articles) and implies a read-only retrieval, but it doesn't describe pagination, output shape, or failure behavior. This is adequate 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 short sentences front-load the action and then specify output and input criteria. There is no filler or repetition of schema boilerplate that doesn't earn 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?
With only one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential input contract and a high-level statement of what is returned. It is complete enough to select and invoke the tool, though the vagueness of 'recent articles' and the absence of output structure keep it just shy of a 5.
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 'url' parameter is already described as a 'Canonical Punch author URL'. The description simply reinforces that same idea ('from a canonical author URL') without adding new syntax, format, or constraints, so the high-coverage baseline of 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?
The description names a specific operation ('Get a Punch author archive') and specifies the payload ('byline name and recent articles'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling Punch tools that fetch articles, headlines, news, or sections. The verb and resource are 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?
The description implies the right moment to use the tool: when you have a canonical Punch author URL and want that author's byline and recent articles. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a single-purpose author archive the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.