Get a specific listing by its registry ID (e.g. '0.0.10601198/5'). Returns full detail including MCP manifest, pricing, owner, and expiry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Listing ID in topic/sequence format. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral burden. It states return content (MCP manifest, pricing, owner, expiry) but does not disclose error handling, authentication, or side effects. 'Get' implies read-only but is not explicitly stated.
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 sentence with no fluff—every part adds value: verb, resource, example, and return fields.
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?
For a simple single-parameter getter, the description is adequately complete, covering purpose and return contents. Could additionally specify not-found behavior, but overall sufficient given no output schema.
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 covers the id parameter with 100% description, and description adds a concrete example format '0.0.10601198/5' that supplements the schema's 'topic/sequence format'.
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?
Clear verb 'Get', resource 'listing', and unique qualifier 'by its registry ID' with example. This distinguishes it from sibling tools list_categories and search_registry.
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?
Implies usage when you have a specific registry ID, but does not explicitly mention when to use list_categories or search_registry instead. No explicit exclusions or alternatives.
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 serves a distinct purpose: get_listing retrieves a specific registry item, list_categories provides taxonomy for filtering, and search_registry performs semantic queries. There is no overlap in their functions, making tool selection straightforward.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: get_listing, list_categories, search_registry. The naming is predictable and clearly communicates the action and target resource.
With only three tools, the server is tightly scoped for a read-only registry search service. Every tool is necessary and no redundant functionality is present.
The tools cover the core operations for a registry index: browsing categories, searching, and retrieving details by ID. There are no obvious dead ends or missing critical features for the stated purpose.