Fetch a ScreenRant author profile from a canonical URL to get byline metadata, biography, social links, and recent articles in structured JSON.
Get a ScreenRant author profile. Returns a ScreenRant author's byline metadata, biography, social links, and recent articles from a canonical author URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical ScreenRant author 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, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the type of data returned, which is useful, but it does not mention read-only behavior, error handling, or any limitations. The description adds some behavioral context but lacks depth.
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 sentences with no redundancy. The purpose is stated first, followed by a concise list of return contents. Every word contributes to the description.
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?
The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema), and the description lists return components, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on URL formatting, output structure, and does not address when to use this tool over siblings. These gaps are noticeable given the large sibling set.
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?
The schema already documents the 'url' parameter as 'Canonical ScreenRant author URL'. The description echoes this without adding new details about URL format or how to obtain it. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description provides minimal added value.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a ScreenRant author profile' and lists what it returns (byline metadata, biography, social links, recent articles). This distinguishes it from article tools like screenrant_article and other author tools by specifying the ScreenRant context.
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 tool is used when you need an author's profile from a canonical URL, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., screenrant_article, screenrant_headlines). No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.