Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official

techradar_author

Fetch a TechRadar author profile by slug or canonical URL, returning their name, job title, biography, social links, and one page of articles with pagination.

Instructions

Get a TechRadar author profile. Returns a TechRadar author's profile, looked up by slug (for example tom-power) or canonical url, which may end in /page/<n>; exactly one is required. page (1-based, default 1) overrides any page in url. The response has the name, job_title, biography, social links, one page of articles and has_next_page.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoCanonical techradar.com/author/<slug> URL, optionally with a /page/<n> segment; alternative to slug
pageNo1-based page number; overrides any page number in url
slugNoAuthor slug, e.g. tom-power

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.5

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the response shape (name, job_title, biography, social links, one page of articles, has_next_page) and pagination semantics ('page' overrides any page in 'url'). It is a read-only lookup, so remaining risk surface is minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and free of filler. Slightly dense with back-ticked field names but every clause carries usable information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating returned fields and the pagination flag. Combined with param and pagination semantics, an agent has enough to call and interpret the result; only an explicit 'vs sibling' routing hint is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% so a baseline of 3 applies, but the description adds the crucial mutual-exclusivity constraint ('exactly one is required') and the page-override rule, which the schema does not state as clearly. An example slug ('tom-power') further aids correct invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a TechRadar author profile') and the identifier types it accepts. The resource is clearly distinct from the techradar_article/headlines/news siblings, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the lookup keys ('slug' or canonical 'url', exactly one required) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives such as techradar_article or techradar_news. Usage is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools