get_answerFetch one published answer by its id (from search_answers): the full direct answer, the explanatory sections, the FAQ, the chapters and experiments it cites and related answers, all with canonical URLs. Use after search_answers when the lead answer is not enough. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Answer id, e.g. "ftx-collapse". | |
| locale | Yes | Language of the result: en, ru, pt or es. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' is largely redundant. It does add real value by disclosing the response composition (sections, FAQ, cited chapters/experiments, related answers, canonical URLs), which no output schema provides.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and resource, then lists the returned content. No filler or repetition.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return shape in detail, and it supplies the usage context and prerequisite source for the id. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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%, so both parameters (id, locale) are already fully documented with pattern, length, and enum. The description adds no extra semantics about id format or locale behavior; baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch one published answer by its id') and enumerates the payload (direct answer, sections, FAQ, chapters, experiments, related answers, canonical URLs), which clearly distinguishes it from search_answers.
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?
Explicitly names the alternative and the selecting condition: 'Use after search_answers when the lead answer is not enough.' The id source is also given ('from search_answers'), so an agent knows how to obtain the required argument.
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.