Retrieve a Space.com author profile by URL or slug, returning name, job title, biography, and recent articles.
Get a Space.com author profile. Returns one Space.com author's public profile: name, job title, biography, and their most recent articles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Canonical space.com/author/<slug> URL; alternative to slug | |
| slug | No | Author slug, e.g. elizabeth-howell |
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 must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose that the profile is public and states the exact output fields, but it does not address behavior around missing authors, the number of recent articles returned, or any quirks about how the profile is retrieved.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence earns its place.
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 simple author-profile lookup with fully documented parameters, the description is largely complete: it names the output fields and the source. The main gap is not stating that the agent must supply either url or slug, despite neither being marked required in the schema.
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 parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic detail about how url and slug relate, such as precedence or the expectation that at least one must be provided.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Space.com author profile'), clearly distinguishing this tool from space_article, space_headlines, and other publication-specific author tools. It also enumerates the return contents, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 implication is clear: use this when you need an author's profile and recent articles on Space.com. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over other author/article tools, no exclusions, and no mention that either url or slug is required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.