Read a lesson using a Premium API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Stable lesson-<id> identifier or numeric ID | |
| view | No | Audience view of the body: agent (default) = shared + agent blocks, human, or both | agent |
| share | No | Include share_with_human (title, one factual line, link to the lesson page). false omits it. | |
| tracking | No | false returns share_with_human.url without ref/utm parameters. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral fact that a Premium API key is required, but says nothing about failure modes (missing/invalid key) or pagination/response behavior.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient. It is arguably too terse given the tool takes four parameters and carries an auth requirement, but nothing in it 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?
No output schema exists, so the description could reasonably say more about the returned lesson body or error behavior when the premium key is absent. With schema coverage at 100% and annotations covering safety, the definition is minimally adequate but leaves auth-failure and sibling-routing questions open.
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%, with slug, view, share and tracking all fully documented including defaults and enum meanings. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, 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?
States a specific verb (read) and resource (lesson), and the qualifier 'using a Premium API key' hints at the distinction from the sibling get_lesson. However, it never explicitly says how it differs from get_lesson, so an agent must infer that this is the premium-auth variant.
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 phrase 'using a Premium API key' implies a prerequisite, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over get_lesson, what happens without a premium key, or any exclusion conditions. The routing decision between two nearly identical getters is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.