get_opportunityGet one published public opportunity, its current cycles, source records, and any approved eligibility or funding facts before ranking or citing it. Missing facts remain unknown. Open Medici ranking is a catalog signal, not personalized fit, eligibility, or acceptance likelihood.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| locale | No | en |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| opportunity | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds significant behavioral details beyond annotations: returns approved eligibility/funding facts, notes missing facts remain unknown, explains ranking signal is not personalized. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=true.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds value with no repetition or fluff.
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 an output schema covering return values, description sufficiently covers input context. Minor gap: could mention slug requirement or locale default, but overall adequate for a simple tool.
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?
Description does not mention parameters; despite schema having 0% coverage and only 2 params, it fails to explain slug or locale, leaving agents to infer meaning from names alone.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'one published public opportunity', and what it returns (cycles, source records, facts). Distinguishes from sibling tools like search_opportunities by focusing on a single item retrieval.
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?
Provides context like 'before ranking or citing it' and warns about Open Medici ranking. However, lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or direct comparison with siblings.
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 distinct purpose: get_opportunity retrieves details of a single opportunity, list_filter_options provides valid search filter values, and search_opportunities performs queries. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_opportunity, list_filter_options, search_opportunities. The naming is uniform and predictable.
With three tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose: exploring filters, searching, and retrieving details. This is an appropriate number for a focused search service.
The tool set covers the essential operations for the domain: discovering filter options, searching for opportunities, and obtaining full details. For a read-only search service, there are no obvious gaps.