Board Fetch Tool
board-fetch-toolFetch a public soundboard by its URL.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The public soundboard URL to fetch. |
board-fetch-toolFetch a public soundboard by its URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The public soundboard URL to fetch. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / board_idRemoved value: -{
- "description": "The ID of the public soundboard to fetch.",
- "minimum": 1,
- "type": "integer"
-}Input schema / properties / urlAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The public soundboard URL to fetch.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "board_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "url"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., what is returned or side effects). Since annotations cover the main behavioral aspect, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 description is a single, well-front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose with zero unnecessary words.
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 fetch tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but does not mention the return value or any additional context (e.g., pagination, format). Leaves some ambiguity for the agent.
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 100%. The description merely restates the schema's 'by its URL' without adding new meaning, format, or constraints. Baseline of 3.
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 the specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'public soundboard' with the method 'by its URL', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like board-search-tool and sound-fetch-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 implies usage when a URL is available, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings. Guidance is implied but not explicit.
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.