get_providerReturns the full public profile of one professional by their slug (the value returned as 'slug' by search_providers): services offered, specializations, spoken languages, locations, working hours, contact details and whether online booking is available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Profile slug from search_providers, e.g. 'cristobal-diaz'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, so the bar for additional behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds useful context by specifying that it returns a 'full public profile' and listing what data the agent can expect, which goes beyond the bare annotation hints.
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 entire description is one focused sentence with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the field list is compact yet comprehensive.
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 no output schema present, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does so thoroughly by listing services, specializations, languages, locations, hours, contacts, and booking availability. Combined with the simple one-parameter schema and clear relationship to search_providers, the agent has everything needed to use the tool 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?
The schema already fully documents the single 'slug' parameter with an example, and the description restates the same source ('the value returned as 'slug' by search_providers'). The description adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('full public profile of one professional by their slug'), and enumerates the key fields returned. It also ties the slug to search_providers, which clearly differentiates 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?
The description clearly indicates this tool is used after obtaining a slug from search_providers, giving the agent a concrete workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool vs alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough for correct selection.
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 clearly distinct purpose: listing filter vocabulary, searching for providers, and retrieving a single provider's full profile. There is no meaningful overlap between them.
All names follow a lowercase snake_case verb-first pattern: get_provider, list_directory_filters, search_providers. The verbs and object granularity vary slightly, but the style is consistent and predictable.
Three tools is well-scoped for a read-only directory server: discover filters, search providers, and fetch details. Each tool earns its place and the small set matches the narrow domain.
The tool surface covers the full read-only directory workflow: getting valid filter values, searching the directory, and retrieving detailed profiles. No write operations are needed, and there are no obvious dead ends for an agent.