get_seed_formatReturns the complete specification (markdown) for calaf_seed: 1 JSON documents — the format to follow when a user asks for a Calaf seed. Read it before authoring; then check your draft with validate_seed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral detail by specifying the output is markdown and that it serves as the authoritative format reference, going beyond the annotation.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage direction. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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 simplicity (no parameters, clear output type), the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how it relates to the sibling. The reference to validate_seed completes the workflow.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description mentions no parameter details, but none are needed since there are none to document.
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 explicitly states the tool returns the complete specification (markdown) for calaf_seed, a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from the sibling validate_seed by indicating it is for obtaining the format, while validation is a separate step.
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Read it before authoring; then check your draft with validate_seed.' This clearly directs the agent on sequencing and names the alternative tool, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke this vs validate_seed.
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.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one retrieves the format specification, the other validates a draft document. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their roles.
Both tool names follow a consistent 'verb_noun' pattern: get_seed_format and validate_seed. The naming is clear, descriptive, and predictable.
With only 2 tools, the server is minimal but they cover the essential workflow of format retrieval and validation. It feels slightly thin but is reasonable for a focused purpose.
The server covers the core workflow (authoring and validating), but there is no tool for creating or handling the seed itself — likely the app handles that externally. Notable gaps could be generation or transformation tools, but the provided surface is coherent.