Fetch a VICE contributor's byline metadata, biography, and recent articles from a canonical contributor URL.
Get a VICE contributor profile. Returns a VICE contributor's byline metadata (name, headshot), biography, and recent articles from a canonical contributor URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical VICE 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 carries the full burden. It discloses the read-style behavior ('Get') and specifies the output categories: byline metadata, biography, and recent articles. It does not cover error behavior, pagination, or canonical-URL failure modes, but for a simple profile lookup this is solid disclosure.
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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and packs the return fields into one compact clause. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy.
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 one-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers the input, the source, and the return categories. It lacks explicit output schema/format details and leaves 'recent articles' vague, but nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly is missing.
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 documents the sole url parameter with 'Canonical VICE contributor URL,' giving 100% schema description coverage. The description repeats the canonical-URL idea without adding format details, examples, or guidance on how the URL should be obtained.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a VICE contributor profile.' It also names the returned data (byline metadata, biography, recent articles), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like vice_article or vice_headlines.
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 description clearly frames when to use the tool: when an agent needs a VICE contributor profile for a canonical contributor URL. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls just short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.