get_post_with_commentsFetch one known public KimchiSushi post and its public comments by UUID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| post_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| post | Yes | ||
| comments | Yes | ||
| comment_count | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that only public posts and comments are returned, and that the post must be 'known' (exists). This goes beyond the structured hints without contradicting them.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no filler or redundant content. Every word adds value.
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 read-only tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and key constraints (public, by UUID). It does not describe error cases (e.g., not found), but this is not essential given the output schema and annotations.
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?
The schema provides only a required post_id string with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by indicating that the parameter should be a UUID, adding semantic clarity not present in the schema.
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 verb (fetch), resource (one known public KimchiSushi post and its public comments), and identifier (by UUID). It distinguishes from siblings like get_recent_posts (which lists multiple) and search (which queries by criteria).
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 when to use it: when you have a UUID and need a specific post with its comments. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using search when the post_id is unknown or get_recent_posts for a list.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct (search, recent posts, health check, routing), but fetch and get_post_with_comments both retrieve posts, differing only by id type and whether comments are included. This overlap could cause misselection, though the descriptions help.
Naming styles are mixed: bare verbs (fetch, search), get_ prefixed names (get_post_with_comments, get_recent_posts), and a long noun-like name (get_kimchisushi_agent_entrypoints). The inconsistent use of verbs and prefixes makes the pattern unpredictable.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a read-only content access service. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy or excessive sprawl.
The tool surface covers the core lifecycle for the domain: searching, fetching individual items, listing recent items, and routing to relevant areas. No obvious gaps for a read-only information retrieval service.