Fetch a WIRED contributor's public profile, including bio, social links, and recent articles, from a canonical author URL.
Get a WIRED contributor profile. Returns one WIRED contributor's public profile: name, job title, biography, headshot, social links, and their recent articles from a canonical author URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical WIRED author URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly signals a read-only operation by describing a 'public profile' and lists exactly what data will be returned. It does not mention pagination, error behavior, or rate limits, but for a simple public-profile fetch this is adequate.
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 two compact sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the field list is gathered into one efficient clause. 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?
Given the tool's low complexity—one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects—the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, from what input, and the schema covers the URL parameter format. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
There is only one parameter and the schema already describes it as a 'Canonical WIRED author URL' with 100% coverage. The description adds only a passing reference to 'a canonical author URL,' which slightly reinforces but does not materially extend the schema's meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 WIRED contributor profile.' It then enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's function unmistakable. The WIRED scope and 'contributor profile' focus clearly distinguish it from sibling article, section, and other-site author tools.
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 implies usage: pass a canonical WIRED author URL when you need a contributor's public profile. However, it never explicitly states when not to use this tool or names alternatives such as wired_article or other author-profile tools, leaving selection guidance largely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.