Get one guide, question page, or blog post by slug — its title, description, and content (blog body markdown, or the FAQ question/answer pairs for guides and question pages).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the output structure (title, description, content per resource type), but fails to mention error handling (e.g., missing slug), authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is minimally sufficient for a read-only tool.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes all critical details. No redundant or extraneous information; every part serves a purpose.
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?
Given the lack of output schema, the description covers the main return fields. It could mention error behavior (e.g., 404 if slug not found) or auth prerequisites, but for a simple getter with clear output expectations, it is reasonably complete.
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 0% and the only parameter 'slug' is not described in the schema. The description adds context by stating the tool retrieves resources 'by slug', but does not explain what a slug is (e.g., URL format, required pattern). For a single required parameter, more detail would be beneficial.
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 action (Get), the resource objects (guide, question page, or blog post), the identifier (slug), and the returned fields (title, description, content). It distinguishes between different resource types and their content formats, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 implies use when you need a specific resource by slug, but it does not explicitly exclude cases or compare to sibling tools (get_firm, get_introduction_path, list_resources, search_firms). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, though the context is clear enough for a simple retrieval tool.
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: get_firm retrieves a specific firm, get_introduction_path provides instructions for introductions, get_resource fetches a single resource, list_resources lists resources, and search_firms searches firms. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (get_firm, get_introduction_path, get_resource, list_resources, search_firms). No deviations.
Five tools is appropriate for a read-only directory server. Each tool covers a distinct operation, and the count is not excessive or insufficient.
The tool surface covers firm lookup/search, resource listing/retrieval, and introduction guidance. Missing a simple list all firms tool (only search is available), but this is a minor gap for a read-only directory.
