Fetch a The Next Web author profile and story cards from a public author archive using an author slug or canonical URL.
Get a The Next Web author profile. Returns one public author profile and the story cards shown on its public author archive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Canonical thenextweb.com/author/<slug> URL; alternative to slug | |
| slug | No | Author slug from the public author sitemap or an article byline |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does signal a read-only, public-data operation by calling the profile 'public' and describing the returned story cards, but it omits rate limits, error behavior when the identifier is unknown, and any auth requirements.
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?
Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for the amount of information conveyed.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value information; it does so at a high level (one profile plus story cards). However, it leaves a genuine ambiguity unaddressed: both parameters are optional, yet one of them is presumably required to identify the author.
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 url and slug are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. precedence between url and slug, or the fact that at least one is effectively needed), so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Get a The Next Web author profile') and even discloses the return payload (profile plus story cards). It is clearly distinguishable from the thenextweb_article/headlines/news siblings by resource, though it does not explicitly name an alternative to route between them.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named despite a dense field of writer/author and TNW sibling tools. The reader must infer that this is a fetch-by-identifier tool from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.