Get the full input schema and calling instructions for one tool found via search_tools. Returns the JSON Schema plus the exact REST/MCP endpoint to call it on. Calling a tool requires that project's own endpoint token, obtained from its owner.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool_name | Yes | The toolName from a search_tools result. | |
| project_slug | Yes | The projectSlug from a search_tools result. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the exact return content (JSON Schema and REST/MCP endpoint) and the auth requirement (project's own endpoint token), which are useful behavioral details beyond the 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 concise sentences that lead with the main purpose, then explain what is returned and the auth token requirement. No wasted words, and all information is relevant.
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 introspection tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides enough context: what it returns, the prerequisite (search_tools result), and auth needs. No output schema means the description's explicit mention of return content fills that gap.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters, with descriptions for each. The tool description minimally adds context by indicating the parameters come from a search_tools result, which is helpful but not substantial. Schema already does the heavy lifting, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Get the full input schema and calling instructions for one tool found via search_tools', which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings 'search_tools' (which searches for tools) and 'invoke_tool' (which calls a tool) by focusing on retrieving metadata.
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 says the tool is for 'one tool found via search_tools', providing clear context that it should be used after searching. It also mentions the auth requirement for calling the tool (endpoint token), which is a practical prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with invoke_tool, though sibling names make the distinction obvious.
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 targets a distinct step in the workflow: search_tools finds tools, describe_tool provides schema/instructions, invoke_tool executes. There is no overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase with underscores: search_tools, describe_tool, invoke_tool. The pluralization of 'tools' is minor and does not break consistency.
Three tools is well-scoped for a discovery/catalog server. Each tool is necessary and sufficient to complete the search-describe-invoke flow without redundancy.
The tool surface fully covers the core domain of discovering and invoking catalog tools. Starting from search, getting schema, and calling the tool is a complete lifecycle with no obvious missing operations.