Dynomatix

Read a case study

dynomatix_get_work

Read one case study in full: what the problem was, what was built and what it changed. Returns the study's own markdown, frontmatter included — the title and canonical URL it opens with are the citation to quote. Call dynomatix_list_work first for a valid slug; only entries whose caseStudyUrl is not null have a write-up to return.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes	The item's slug, exactly as dynomatix_list_work returned it. Lowercase letters, digits and hyphens.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the return format (markdown with frontmatter), the significance of the title and canonical URL as the citation, and the null-caseStudyUrl behavior. It is slightly shy of a 5 only because it doesn't mention error behavior or response shapes, but for a read tool this is a strong disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause earns its place. It packs purpose, output, prerequisite, and validity condition without waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns, how to get a valid input, and when no write-up exists. No additional behavioral detail is necessary for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already documents the slug parameter with format constraints (maxLength, lowercase/digits/hyphens). The description adds crucial context beyond the schema by instructing the agent to obtain the slug from dynomatix_list_work and to check `caseStudyUrl` for validity. This exceeds the schema's basic coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read one case study in full' and clarifies what is returned ('what the problem was, what was built and what it changed'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list tool by specifying it returns the study's markdown and frontmatter, making its purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Call dynomatix_list_work first for a valid slug' and warns that only entries whose `caseStudyUrl` is not null have a write-up. This tells the agent when and how to use the tool, including a direct prerequisite and a filtering condition.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Dynomatix tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action and resource: about, list/get positions, list/get work, submit application/enquiry. There is no overlap; an agent can easily select the correct tool based on whether it needs company info, a job posting, a case study, or to submit a form.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dynomatix_ prefix is consistent, and most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (list_open_positions, get_position, submit_application). The exception is dynomatix_about, which uses a noun instead of a verb, but it is a single minor deviation and the overall pattern remains predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well-scoped for a company website that provides company info, job listings, case studies, and two submission forms. Each tool earns its place, and there is no bloat or redundancy.

Completeness5/5

For the apparent domain (Dynomatix's public site), the tool set fully covers reading about the company, browsing and retrieving jobs and work, and submitting applications and enquiries. There are no obvious dead ends: list tools feed detail tools, and submission tools have clear input requirements.

Resources

Need Help?