Read one community's card by slug (mirror of the term://communities/{slug} resource). Encrypted communities answer not_found to non-members, indistinguishable from unknown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | 3-64 chars, [a-z0-9-]; the community's slug. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers a genuinely important behavioral trait: encrypted communities return not_found to non-members, indistinguishable from an unknown slug. That prevents an agent from misreading a permission denial as a missing resource. It still omits auth requirements, rate limits, and any read-only/error semantics beyond this one case.
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?
Two tight sentences, no filler. The core identity (read one card by slug) is front-loaded and the edge-case behavior follows immediately.
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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description covers identity, the lookup key, and the key error case. It does not hint at what fields a community card contains, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
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% and the slug parameter's format ([a-z0-9-], 3-64 chars) is fully documented in the schema, so the description need not repeat it. The description's only added meaning is that the slug maps to a term:// resource path, which is minor. Baseline 3 fits.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Read one community's card by slug'), and the 'one' + 'by slug' phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from the list_communities sibling. The pointer to the equivalent term:// resource adds a second, unambiguous anchor for what is returned.
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?
Usage is implied by 'Read one community ... by slug', which tells the agent this is the single-item lookup rather than a listing. However, it never explicitly names list_communities as the alternative or states when to prefer one over the other, so the routing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.