get_station_overviewOne public station page without its worked examples: wonder question, usual grade, concepts, lessons and minutes, idea cards, prerequisites and next stations, safety notes verbatim. Only stations that have a public page. Returns Persian (fa-IR, RTL) text from public fekrestan.com pages for parents and teachers. No answers to in-app exercises.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| n | Yes | Station number 1–30 | |
| track | Yes | Track id, e.g. math |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds meaningful context on top: output is Persian (fa-IR, RTL), sourced from public fekrestan.com pages, safety notes are verbatim, and unavailable stations are excluded. It does not describe error behavior when a station lacks a public page, which is the one remaining gap.
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 resource and its payload are front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by three short scoping sentences covering availability, locale, and exclusions. No filler and nothing restated from the schema or annotations.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers content scope, audience, language/encoding, and exclusion rules. Only the failure mode for stations without a public page is left unspecified.
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% with both parameters documented (track enum with example, n as station number 1–30), so the schema carries the load. The description adds only marginal meaning via the availability caveat that some track/n combinations have no public page.
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?
"One public station page" names the resource precisely, and the colon list (wonder question, usual grade, concepts, lessons and minutes, idea cards, prerequisites, next stations, safety notes) makes the payload concrete. It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like get_subject or get_roadmap by being a single station, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
"Only stations that have a public page" and "No answers to in-app exercises" give real when-not constraints, and "without its worked examples" implicitly points to a separate worked-examples tool. However, no alternative tool is named, so the agent must infer routing to get_how_to_solve or get_subject on its own.
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.