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 | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uri | Yes | Where the same document lives as a resource. | |
| markdown | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "markdown": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "uri": {
+ "description": "Where the same document lives as a resource.",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "uri",
+ "markdown"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. The description adds value by revealing the response is markdown and that it serves as the canonical format reference for authoring, plus the workflow of consulting before validate_seed. This goes beyond what the annotation provides, though it doesn't cover every possible behavioral edge (e.g., idempotency), which is acceptable given read-only and no params.
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: the first packs the core return value and format, the second gives the recommended usage order. No filler, front-loaded with the most important information.
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 zero parameters, a readOnlyHint annotation, and an output schema present, the description covers all an agent needs: what it returns, in what format, and when to call it relative to its sibling. No missing invocation requirements.
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 there is nothing for the description to add to the schema. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously) and the description correctly focuses on purpose rather than inventing parameter details.
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?
Description states a specific verb ('Returns'), a concrete resource ('complete specification for calaf_seed'), and the output format (markdown). It also distinguishes itself from sibling validate_seed by framing this as the spec to read before authoring. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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?
Explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('Read it before authoring') and names the alternative for the next step ('then check your draft with validate_seed'). It provides a clear sequence and excludes misuse.
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.