fetchRitorna il testo integrale di un articolo dato il suo id (l'URL restituito da 'search'). / Returns the full text of an article given its id (the URL returned by 'search').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Id/URL dell'articolo |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by stating 'returns the full text', but does not explicitly confirm idempotency or mention any side effects, authentication, or rate limits.
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 extremely concise with no wasted words. Bilingual text is appropriate and efficient.
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?
While the tool is simple, the description omits details about the return format (e.g., plain text, HTML, JSON) which would be helpful for an agent to parse the response 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by specifying that the id is the URL returned by 'search', which clarifies the expected input format beyond the schema's brief 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?
The description clearly states that the tool returns the full text of an article given its id, and explicitly references the sibling tool 'search' as the source of the id, distinguishing it well.
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 indicates that the id should be a URL returned by 'search', providing clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus 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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: capabilities returns static profile, search finds articles, fetch retrieves full text, and match_use_case dynamically maps needs to capabilities. No functional overlap.
Naming is inconsistent: 'capabilities' is a noun, while 'fetch', 'search', and 'match_use_case' are verbs. No uniform pattern (e.g., all verbs or all noun_verb).
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose—providing company info, article search, and use-case matching. No redundancy or unnecessary tools.
Covers key operations: profile lookup, article search and retrieval, and intelligent need-to-capability matching. No obvious gaps for the stated domain of operational notes and capabilities.