get_area
One topic area with its related-area graph resolved — walk the network from here.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
One topic area with its related-area graph resolved — walk the network from here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like permissions, side effects, or limitations beyond the basic purpose.
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 short and to the point, but the phrase 'walk the network from here' is somewhat vague, reducing clarity slightly.
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 and one undocumented parameter, the description should explain what 'related-area graph' entails or the return format, which it does not.
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 single parameter 'slug' has no description in schema or description text; the description adds no meaning about what slug is or how to format it.
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 clearly states it returns one topic area with its related-area graph, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'find_areas' which likely lists areas.
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 you need a single area and its network, but no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives.
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.