Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

rawstory_author

Look up a Raw Story author profile by slug or canonical URL; retrieve name, bio, avatar, social links, and 15 recent stories with title, URL, and date.

Instructions

Get a Raw Story author profile. Returns a Raw Story author's profile, looked up by slug (for example bennitokelty) or canonical url; exactly one is required. The response has the name, bio, avatar, social links and the 15 most recent stories, each with title, URL and a YYYY-MM-DD date. Older stories are not reachable, and an unknown author returns not-found.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoCanonical rawstory.com/u/<slug> URL; alternative to slug
slugNoAuthor slug, e.g. bennitokelty

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.5

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: it enumerates the returned fields, the avatar/social-links payload, the 15-story cap, and the not-found behavior for unknown authors. It omits operational context such as auth or rate limits, but for a public read endpoint that is a minor gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences: identity and keys first, then the response payload, then the coverage and error limits. No sentence repeats the schema or the name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: accepted keys, the one-of rule, the exact return shape, the recency window, and the failure mode. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still earns credit by supplying a concrete example slug (`bennitokelty`) and by stating the one-of constraint that the schema's empty `required` list does not express.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

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 Raw Story author profile') and immediately identifies the lookup keys, so an agent can distinguish it from rawstory_article, rawstory_news and rawstory_sections without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the lookup modes (slug or canonical url) and the mutual-exclusion constraint 'exactly one is required', which is real selection guidance absent from the schema. It does not name a sibling alternative for the case where the slug is unknown, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools