get_ideaOne published idea as its public page shows it: the need, one way to build it, the four score parts and why, how we know (dated evidence, without naming sources) and what we don't know. No account needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The idea's slug, from latest_ideas or its URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context about the page content (dated evidence without naming sources, what's known/unknown) and notes no account is needed. This goes beyond the structured annotations, providing useful behavioral 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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('One published idea as its public page shows it') and then efficiently enumerates the content components. No filler or redundancy.
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 (one required parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description covers everything an agent needs: the resource scope, content detail, and access requirement. The annotations cover safety, and the description covers the page's contents, making it fully adequate for correct invocation.
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 schema already fully describes the slug parameter, including its source and constraints (coverage 100%). The description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool reads one idea in full and enumerates the specific content sections (need, build, score parts, evidence, unknowns). This distinguishes it from siblings: latest_ideas lists ideas, search_ideas searches, list_categories lists categories, while get_idea retrieves a single idea's full page.
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 description implies usage when you have a slug and want the full public page, mentioning the slug source (latest_ideas or URL). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. The absence of exclusion criteria makes this merely implied, not explicit.
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.