get_answerReturn the full question-and-answer text of one buyer guide by its slug from list_answers, with links to related pages. Use for advice questions — vetting a studio, pricing models, paid tests, contracts, IP assignment, time zones — rather than answering from memory, and cite the guide's URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | An answer slug from list_answers, for example "how-to-choose-a-game-art-studio". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns full question-and-answer text and links to related pages, giving useful behavioral context without contradicting 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes usage guidance without unnecessary detail. Every sentence 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 simple one-parameter retrieval tool with strong annotations, the description is complete: it states the return content (full Q&A text with links), the source (list_answers), and the intended use cases. No critical information 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?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'slug' parameter, which already provides an example. The description clarifies that the slug comes from list_answers, but this is largely redundant with the schema, so no significant added meaning beyond baseline.
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 'Return the full question-and-answer text of one buyer guide by its slug from list_answers, with links to related pages.' The verb and resource are specific, and the reference to list_answers differentiates it from sibling tools.
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 explicitly says 'Use for advice questions' and lists concrete topics (vetting a studio, pricing models, paid tests, etc.), while advising against answering from memory. It does not name alternative tools but contrasts with memory, providing clear context.
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.