Get detailed information about a specific tenant, including metadata, description, and configuration. Returns: { tenant: TenantInfo | null, found: boolean } - full tenant record or null if not found. Example: call federation_tenant_info with arguments {"tenant_id":""}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tenant_id | Yes | The tenant ID to get information for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context: the return shape ({ tenant: TenantInfo | null, found: boolean }), the null-if-not-found behavior, and an example call, which goes beyond the 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?
Three concise sentences: purpose, return type, and example. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.
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 read-only tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, return shape, null behavior, and example. Annotations cover safety. No output schema is needed since return format is explicitly described. Complete for its complexity.
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 input schema fully describes the single parameter (tenant_id) with 100% coverage. The description adds an example call format but no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 the tool gets detailed information about a specific tenant, listing included fields (metadata, description, configuration). This distinguishes it from siblings like federation_list_tenants (which lists all tenants) and federation_delete_tenant (which mutates).
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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving detailed info about a single tenant, and provides an example invocation. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives like federation_list_tenants or state exclusion criteria.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap among introspection tools (introspection_system_probe vs. introspection_system_confidence vs. introspection_system_diff) and between similar reading tools (federation_canon_get vs. federation_tenant_info). Descriptions help clarify but boundaries are not always crisp.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use verb_noun (federation_bond_post, federation_bond_release), some use noun_verb (federation_arena, federation_help), and some use noun_noun (about_us_about, moltbook_read). There are also tools with dot separators (about_us_about) and camelCase (cohort_email_send) mixed with snake_case, making patterns unpredictable.
With 72 tools, the surface is extremely large and likely to overwhelm agents. While the server covers a complex federation platform, this many tools suggest poor scoping or lack of consolidation, making it hard for agents to discover and choose the right tool.
The server covers core federation lifecycle (create/list/update/delete tenants, manage managers, bonds, keys) and some platform operations, but there are gaps such as missing tenant deletion workflow details, no explicit tool for updating manager info, and no direct tool for tenant-level settings beyond basic update. The introspection suite is thorough but the domain may not be evenly covered.
