Fetch the full text of a Cobalt study by the id search returned, or of any Cobalt review by its URL (/r/) or slug. Returns text: findings, prices, the comparison matrix, and the underlying review's notes with links to its screenshots. Use get_review instead when you need to see the screenshots as images.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | An id from search (e.g. 'teardown:canva'), or a review URL or slug. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only and closed-world behavior. The description adds the return content details (findings, prices, comparison matrix, notes with screenshot links), which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the output. It does not contradict annotations.
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?
Two sentences with no fluff. The action and target are front-loaded, followed by return contents and a routing note. Every sentence earns its place.
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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and scope, the description fully explains what to expect in the response and when to use the alternative. Nothing critical is missing.
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 documents the id parameter at 100% coverage, including examples and accepted formats. The description adds the specific URL pattern (/r/<slug>), which is a small but useful enhancement beyond the schema description.
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?
Clearly states the tool fetches the full text of a Cobalt study or review, and specifies the accepted identifier formats (search id, URL, slug). It also differentiates from the sibling get_review by naming it and the condition under which to use it.
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?
Explicitly instructs to use get_review when screenshots as images are needed, giving a clear when-not condition. This provides direct guidance on selecting between the two closely related tools.
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.