Fetches a talent's profile by URL slug, returning their catchphrase, biography, and social links so clients can identify and connect with that talent.
Fetches the profile page for a specific talent using their URL slug (e.g., 'mori-calliope', 'gawr-gura'). Returns their catchphrase, biography, and social links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| talent_slug | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Fetches' makes the read-only nature clear and the listed return fields give some sense of the response, but there is no mention of behavior on a nonexistent slug, rate limits, or pagination. Output schema exists, which lowers the bar for return-value detail.
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 sentences, no filler. The parameter is identified first, then the payoff (returned fields), which is the right front-loading for a lookup tool.
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 an output schema, the description covers the input format and hints at the response shape, which is sufficient to call it correctly. The only meaningful gap is slug provenance and error behavior on a bad slug.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does reasonably well: the parenthetical examples ('mori-calliope', 'gawr-gura') convey the slug format (lowercase, hyphenated) that the bare 'string' schema does not. It doesn't state whether slugs are case-sensitive or where to obtain them, keeping it short of a 5.
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 ('Fetches') and resource ('the profile page for a specific talent'), and the return fields (catchphrase, biography, social links) further pin down what the resource is. An agent can distinguish this from list_talents (enumeration) and get_recent_news without consulting schemas.
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: fetch a single talent's profile when you have a slug. There is no explicit guidance about where slugs come from (presumably list_talents) or when to prefer this over the sibling tools, so the agent must infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.