get_authorFetch a publisher's totals and top models by their handle. Costs one credit per call.
One publisher with totals and their top models (GET /authors/{id}). Cost: 1 credit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Publisher handle, e.g. mlabonne. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context with the HTTP endpoint and, notably, the cost ('1 credit'), which an agent needs for budgeting decisions and cannot get from the annotations.
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 clauses: what you get plus the endpoint, then the cost. Return content is front-loaded ahead of the operational metadata, and nothing is wasted.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden, and it does so briefly by naming totals and top models. Cost and endpoint are supplied as well; only the error case for an unknown handle is unstated, a minor gap for a read-only lookup.
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 100% and the single parameter is documented with a concrete example ('Publisher handle, e.g. mlabonne.'). The description adds no further semantic detail about the id, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb+resource ('One publisher') and even enumerates the payload ('totals and their top models'), which is far more informative than the title's 'Get author'. Scope ('One publisher') implicitly separates it from the sibling list_authors, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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 only implied: the singular 'One publisher' suggests fetching a known handle rather than browsing, and the required id parameter reinforces that. There is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of list_authors or how to obtain the id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.