Retrieve a Wccftech author's public profile and recent article cards by slug or canonical /author// URL.
Get a Wccftech author profile. Returns one author's public profile and recent article cards. Identify the author by slug or canonical /author// URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Canonical Wccftech author page URL | |
| slug | No | Wccftech author slug, e.g. sarfraz |
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 burden. It discloses the return contents (public profile plus recent article cards), which is useful since there is no output schema, and "Get" implies read-only. But it omits any note on pagination of the article cards, auth requirements, or error behavior when neither identifier is supplied.
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?
Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, then scope of the return, then identification options. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.
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 two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to target it. It stops short of covering edge cases such as precedence when both slug and url are given or behavior when neither is provided.
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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: that the two parameters are alternative identifiers for the same entity (slug OR canonical URL) rather than complementary inputs. That clarifies the optional/0-required shape an agent sees.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Get a Wccftech author profile") and elaborates scope ("Returns one author's public profile and recent article cards"). Combined with the wccftech_ prefix, an agent can distinguish this from wccftech_article/headlines/news without opening a schema.
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?
It tells the agent HOW to identify the author ("by slug or canonical /author/<slug>/ URL") but gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus the many sibling *_author and wccftech_* tools. Usage is implied by the purpose rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.