Fetch an RNZ reporter's profile via slug or URL. Returns bio, contact, story count, and first page of their news stories.
Get an RNZ author profile. Returns one RNZ reporter's public profile: name, role, bio, email, X/Twitter handle, photo, total story count, and the first page of their news stories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Canonical rnz.co.nz/authors/<slug> URL; alternative to slug | |
| slug | No | Author slug, e.g. ellen-o-dwyer |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully signals this is a read-only public profile operation, lists the returned fields, and discloses the 'first page' limitation for news stories. It does not cover edge cases like missing profiles or behavior when both url and slug are supplied, but for a simple public GET it is fairly transparent.
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 one tight sentence with the action and resource front-loaded, followed by a compact list of return fields. No words are wasted, and the most important scoping information ('one RNZ reporter's public profile') comes immediately after the verb.
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 low parameter complexity and absence of an output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, lists expected return fields, and notes the first-page story limit. It could add a sentence about requiring either url or slug, but the schema already documents both, making this only a minor gap.
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%, so the input schema already documents both parameters, their purpose, and an example slug. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which matches the baseline of 3. It also does not clarify that exactly one of the two optional parameters should be provided, though the schema's 'alternative to slug' hint partially covers this.
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 an RNZ author profile.' It then enumerates exactly what is returned, which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable. In a sibling list containing rnz_article, rnz_headlines, rnz_news, and rnz_sections, the author-profile scope clearly distinguishes it.
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 intended use case: call this when you need a single RNZ reporter's public profile and their first page of stories. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like rnz_article for full article content, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.