get_meme_templateFetch one meme template by its slug (from search_meme_templates or a memebo.at/templates/ URL): dimensions, image URL, suggested caption count and, when it has one, the meaning and origin of the meme with its sources.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Template slug, e.g. "x-x-everywhere" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses that meaning and origin are conditional ('when it has one') and that sources accompany them, which is real behavioral detail. It does not cover failure behavior for an unknown slug or any caching/auth traits, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the slug provenance in a tight parenthetical and the return contents following. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is deferred.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, so an agent knows what it gets back. The only gap is behavior on a missing/invalid slug, which is minor for a single-parameter read.
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 already includes an example slug format, yet the description still adds value by naming the two authoritative sources for a slug (search results, template URL). That provenance guidance is meaningfully 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch one meme template by its slug') and enumerates exactly what comes back: dimensions, image URL, caption count, and optional meaning/origin. Referencing 'one' template plus slugs coming from search_meme_templates implicitly but clearly separates it from the sibling search tool.
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?
Tells the agent precisely how to obtain the required input: from search_meme_templates or a memebo.at/templates/<slug> URL, which is the key routing decision against the sibling. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., 'do not use this to list templates'), so a 4 rather than a 5.
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.