Fetch a Yardbarker author profile by canonical URL, returning public name, image, and story links in structured JSON.
Get a Yardbarker author profile. Returns an author's public profile name, image, and story links from a canonical Yardbarker author URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Yardbarker author URL |
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 shape of the return (profile name, image, story links), which implies a safe read operation, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or behavior on invalid/non-canonical URLs.
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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the return contents second. Nothing is wasted, though the return-content sentence is arguably redundant given no output schema exists to define it.
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 read tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough: what it fetches, what it returns, and the required input type. Minor gaps remain around error behavior and how to obtain a canonical author 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?
Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents the url field. The description reinforces the 'canonical Yardbarker author URL' requirement but adds no format example or guidance on what qualifies as canonical, making this baseline-level.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get a Yardbarker author profile') and lists what is returned (name, image, story links). It is clearly separable from siblings like yardbarker_article or yardbarker_headlines by resource type, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
Usage is implied by the required input – you pass a canonical author URL – but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling tools that retrieve articles or headlines instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.