Retrieve a Salon writer's profile from a canonical URL, returning byline metadata, biography, and recent articles in clean JSON.
Get a Salon writer profile. Returns a Salon writer's byline metadata, biography, and recent articles from a canonical writer URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Salon writer URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It makes the retrieval nature clear by saying 'Get' and enumerates the returned data, but it does not disclose pagination behavior for recent articles, error behavior, or any URL-format requirements beyond canonical.
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?
One efficient sentence with no filler. The primary resource scope is front-loaded, and each clause adds useful information about what the tool returns and where it gets it from.
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 one-parameter read-style lookup, the description is sufficiently complete: the agent knows the required canonical URL and the main output categories. It is slightly incomplete because it does not specify whether recent articles are limited or paginated, and it does not point to any sibling tool for full article retrieval.
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 schema already documents url as the canonical Salon writer URL. The description repeats this idea without adding examples, URL format details, or acceptance criteria, so it does not significantly increase parameter understanding.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Salon writer profile'), then clarifies the returned content: byline metadata, biography, and recent articles. This clearly distinguishes it from article-level tools like salon_article and from author tools for other publications.
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 it should be used when a Salon writer profile is needed and that the input must be a canonical writer URL, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no exclusion guidance relative to salon_article, salon_news, or other author lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.