E3D Pilot

e3d_get_expert

Read-onlyIdempotent

FREE: returns one built-in expert in full: its description, the exact lens text a debate seat would receive, its tasks, model hints (a tie-break only: the engine assigns the model), license and content hash. Nothing is spent and nothing is written.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "e3d_get_expert"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	An expert's name, from e3d_list_experts.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`expert`	No	name, description, lens, tags, tasks, version, license, content_hash, model_hints, tools ("none"), text (the full lens), presets (the presets it is in), how_to_use.
`notice`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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 still adds real context beyond them: that the call is free, that nothing is written, and that model hints are advisory only because the engine assigns the model — a non-obvious behavioral caveat an agent would otherwise misread as a selectable setting.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the 'FREE' cost signal, then the payload contents, then the no-side-effect reassurance. The parenthetical about model hints is the only embellishment and it carries genuine information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return shape needn't be spelled out, and the description goes further by naming the fields anyway. Safety and cost are covered, and the sole parameter is routed to its source tool. The only gap is the absent explicit comparison against e3d_list_experts for an agent deciding which to call first.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'name' parameter is fully documented with a pattern and a pointer to e3d_list_experts. The description adds only the qualifier 'built-in', implying the name must come from the built-in catalog rather than a custom expert, which is a marginal but real addition over the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('returns one built-in expert in full') and enumerates exactly what comes back: description, lens text, tasks, model hints, license, content hash. That is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with e3d_list_experts, leaving the single-vs-list distinction to be inferred (the schema does point at the list tool).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The leading 'FREE' and 'Nothing is spent and nothing is written' give a clear cost/side-effect signal that implicitly makes this the cheap choice when inspecting a single expert. There is no explicit when-to-use versus e3d_list_experts or when-not guidance in the description itself; the routing hint lives only in the parameter schema.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All E3D Pilot tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?