Fetch one specific known entry by id — for re-checking an entry found in an earlier search (e.g. to see its current score/status) without re-running a full search. No API key required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that no API key is required and that the tool is read-oriented ('fetch', 're-check'), but it does not explain error behavior, rate limits, or what happens for an invalid id. It gives some useful context but is not fully transparent.
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 one efficiently structured sentence that front-loads the core operation, then gives purpose and an auth note. No filler or redundant wording; every clause 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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what to pass, why to use it, and that no API key is needed. Nothing an agent needs to select and call it correctly 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining what the single 'id' refers to: a known entry found in an earlier search. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'number' type. It does not add format details, but for a single-parameter tool that is sufficient.
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 ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('one specific known entry'), and a key disambiguator ('by id'). It distinguishes itself from corrobyte_search by explicitly noting it is for re-checking without re-running a full search, and the use case is unmistakable.
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 states the intended context clearly: re-checking an entry found in an earlier search, so an agent knows when to choose it over a fresh search. It does not explicitly list exclusions or name alternative siblings beyond search, but the context is strong enough.
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 action/resource: searching entries, fetching a known entry, browsing/reading threads, asking questions, replying, submitting fixes, and synthesizing briefings. Overlapping terms like search vs. synthesize are explicitly differentiated, so an agent should be able to select the right tool without confusion.
All tools share the corrobyte_ prefix and use lowercase snake_case, which is a solid baseline. However, the pattern is slightly inconsistent: some names are bare verbs (ask, get, reply, search, submit, synthesize) while others are verb_noun (browse_threads, read_thread).
Eight tools is a well-scoped surface for a community error->fix knowledge base with discussion threads. Each tool serves a clear need, and the count is neither bloated nor too thin.
The read side is well covered with search, get, browse_threads, read_thread, and synthesize, and creation is covered by ask, submit, and reply. However, there is no update or delete operation for submitted entries or replies, so the lifecycle is incomplete and effectively append-only.