fetchFetch the full provenance-backed record for a search result id as a citable document. Alias of get_part shaped to the search/fetch connector contract.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| url | Yes | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| title | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the record is 'full provenance-backed' and returned as a 'citable document', which goes beyond the structured annotations.
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 sentences long and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence adds the alias relationship, and both sentences earn their place without redundancy or fluff.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter), has rich annotations, and an output schema exists. The description covers the essential purpose, the parameter's role, and the contract placement, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 0%, but the description compensates by clarifying that the 'id' parameter is a 'search result id', giving essential meaning beyond the bare property name. For a single-parameter tool, this is sufficient semantic guidance.
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 fetches a full provenance-backed record for a search result id as a citable document. It also distinguishes itself by noting it is an alias of get_part, providing immediate sibling differentiation.
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 provides clear context by positioning the tool as an alias of get_part shaped to the search/fetch connector contract. This implies when to use it (search/fetch flows) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond get_part.
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 core tools are distinct, but fetch/search are aliases of get_part/search_parts, and view_bom duplicates build_bom data. Descriptions clarify the aliases, so agents can disambiguate, but the redundancy introduces minor confusion.
Most tools follow verb_noun (get_part, list_builds, check_compatibility). However, fetch and search are bare verbs, and fetch/get_part and search/search_parts show inconsistent verb choices for the same operation.
11 tools is well-scoped for a parts catalogue with search, BOM, and compatibility features. Each tool has a clear role, and no obvious bloat.
The surface covers search, retrieval, provenance, comparison, compatibility, and BOM generation. Minor gaps: no direct enumeration of parts by category (only counts) and no CRUD, but for a read-only demo catalogue this is acceptable.