Fetch a Rolling Stone author's byline, biography, and recent articles from a canonical author URL. Returns clean JSON sourced from the author's public RSS feed.
Get a Rolling Stone author profile. Returns a Rolling Stone author's byline metadata, biography, and recent articles (sourced from the author's own public RSS feed) from a canonical author URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Rolling Stone 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 carries the full burden. It discloses that recent articles come from the author's own public RSS feed, which is a meaningful behavioral detail about data sourcing and potential limitations. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, though it is not explicitly stated.
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 two crisp sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and resource, and the second details the return values and data source. Everything present contributes to agent comprehension.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential ground: what it does, what it expects, and what it returns. It does not describe the output format or handle edge cases like an author without an RSS feed, but these are minor gaps at this complexity level.
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 parameter is already described as 'Canonical Rolling Stone author URL.' The description repeats this phrase without adding examples, formatting rules, or additional constraints, so it adds no semantic value beyond the schema.
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+resource pair: 'Get a Rolling Stone author profile.' It then enumerates the returned data (byline metadata, biography, recent articles) and the required input (canonical author URL), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like rollingstone_article or rollingstone_headlines.
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 function of the tool is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it (when an author profile is needed), but the description offers no explicit guidance about alternatives or when not to use it. It neither names sibling tools nor gives exclusion criteria, leaving usage to implication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.