help_center_get_articleOne article with its HTML content, by id or slug. Free.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "help_center_get_article"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| slug | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context — the response contains HTML content, and the call is 'Free' (no cost/quota) — but it omits behavior for the degenerate case where both parameters are optional and omitted.
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 short sentence that front-loads the resource and return payload; 'Free' earns its place as pricing context, though it sits oddly at the end.
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?
A simple read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, so the bar is modest, and the HTML return type is disclosed. The unresolved ambiguity around the two optional identifier parameters is the main completeness gap.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it only repeats the parameter names in prose ('by id or slug'). It does not state whether the two are mutually exclusive, which wins if both are supplied, or what happens when neither is given.
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 states a specific resource — one article — and specifies the returned payload ('with its HTML content') and the two lookup keys. It implicitly separates itself from help_center_list_articles by saying 'One article', but never names the sibling.
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?
'by id or slug' hints at how to address an article but gives no when-to-use framing: no guidance on preferring this over help_center_list_articles, no prerequisites, no indication of what to do if both or neither identifier is supplied.
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.