Retrieve a TIME author's profile by canonical URL, including biography, byline metadata, social links, and recent articles.
Get a TIME author profile. Returns a TIME author's byline metadata, biography, social accounts, and recent articles from a canonical author URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical TIME 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 and does indicate a read-only retrieval operation ('Get', 'Returns') and the data categories returned. It does not disclose possible failure modes, URL validity requirements, or pagination/limits on recent articles, but for a simple profile fetch this is a moderate gap.
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 short sentences with no filler: the first states the purpose and the second adds output scope and input. The key constraint ('canonical author URL') appears in the same sentence as the output list.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it says what the tool returns and what input it expects. It could add explicit error/edge-case behavior, but the low complexity means this is not a significant gap.
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 describes the single parameter as 'Canonical TIME author URL' with 100% coverage. The description only restates this as 'from a canonical author URL' and adds no new format, source, or usage details.
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 and resource ('Get a TIME author profile') and enumerates the returned content: byline metadata, biography, social accounts, and recent articles. This clearly separates it from sibling tools such as time_article and time_headlines, as well as author tools for other outlets.
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 usage context is implied: call it when you need a TIME author profile and already have a canonical author URL. However, it never explicitly states when not to use it or names alternatives like time_article, so the agent must infer selection from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.