Fetch a Vanity Fair contributor profile from a canonical URL, returning byline metadata, biography, headshot, social links, and recent articles.
Get a Vanity Fair contributor profile. Returns a Vanity Fair contributor's byline metadata, biography, headshot, social links, and recent articles from a canonical contributor URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Vanity Fair contributor 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 must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the input and output content but does not mention any error conditions, limitations, or special requirements beyond the canonical URL. It is a read operation, so the lack of risk warnings is acceptable, but it could note potential emptiness or formatting issues.
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?
One concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Get a Vanity Fair contributor profile') and then lists the response components. No filler or repetition.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately specifies what will be returned and the input format. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying what 'canonical' means or how to obtain the URL, but the schema already labels it 'Canonical Vanity Fair contributor URL'.
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 description for the url parameter is 100% covered, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already states. It restates that the URL is canonical, providing no new semantic detail.
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?
Description clearly states the tool gets a Vanity Fair contributor profile and enumerates the returned data (byline metadata, biography, headshot, social links, recent articles). It distinguishes from sibling author tools by the specific publication domain.
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 intended use is implied by the name and domain (Vanity Fair contributors), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over other author tools or any exclusions. The description does not mention alternatives or criteria for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.