Get a node's full details including endpoints and cloud info.
Args: node_id: Node ID (e.g., ND-123-456-789).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| cloud | No | ||
| region | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| network | Yes | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| protocol | Yes | ||
| node_tier | Yes | ||
| blockchain | No | ||
| wss_endpoint | No | ||
| api_namespaces | No | ||
| https_endpoint | No | ||
| beacon_endpoint | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, providing the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns endpoints and cloud info, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, permission requirements). This is acceptable given the annotation coverage, matching the baseline for useful but not rich behavioral context.
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 two sentences: the first clearly states the tool's purpose, and the second concisely documents the only argument with an example. No wasted words or irrelevant detail.
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?
The tool is a simple single-parameter read operation, and the description covers purpose, parameter format, and return content. With an output schema and annotations present, no significant information is missing for selecting and invoking 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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, and it does by including an 'Args' section that provides the parameter name and an example format ('ND-123-456-789'). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it could offer more detail on sourcing or validation.
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 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource 'node' with a defined scope 'full details including endpoints and cloud info'. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_nodes, which would return a summary collection.
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 for retrieving comprehensive details of a single node ('full details'), giving clear context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use list_nodes to list nodes', so it falls short of a perfect 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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: nodes, projects, docs, pricing, status, org, faucet, and contact. There is no overlap between list/get, create/update/delete, or the doc search vs fetch tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_node, get_project, list_nodes, update_node, delete_project). Underscore separator and lowercase are used throughout with no mixed conventions.
At 18 tools, the set is slightly above the typical 3-15 range but each tool serves a distinct purpose within the platform's domain. The count is appropriate for a platform with project, node, documentation, pricing, status, and faucet features.
The tool set provides full CRUD for both projects and nodes, plus deployment options, pricing, docs search/retrieval, platform status, organization info, testnet faucet, and a contact channel. There are no obvious dead ends for the workflows the server advertises.
