get_toolGet the full profile of one AI tool by its directory slug: description, pricing, key features, editorial verdict and rating, the date it was last human-verified, lifecycle status, and the official site URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The directory slug, e.g. "gamma-app-ai-powered-presenting-ideas" (from search_tools). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds value by detailing the return fields, but does not introduce any new behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply.
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?
Single well-structured sentence, front-loaded with action, lists what is included with no wasted words.
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 one input param and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns, leaving no gaps.
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 coverage is 100% with a good param description. The description adds context by specifying that the slug comes from search_tools and gives an example, enhancing meaning beyond the schema.
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 verb 'get' and the resource 'full profile of one AI tool', and lists specific fields (description, pricing, key features, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like search_tools.
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 from search_tools, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like list_tools or check_tool_status.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: checking lifecycle status, comparing two tools, finding alternatives, getting full details, listing by category, and searching. No overlap.
All tool names use a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_tool_status, search_tools). Minor singular/plural variation is acceptable.
With 6 tools covering search, browse, detail, comparison, and lifecycle checks, the count is well-scoped for an AI tool directory service.
The tool set covers the main user needs: discovery (search, list), details (get_tool), verification (check_tool_status), comparison (compare_tools), and alternatives (find_alternatives). No obvious gaps.