PostThisDeal pages and guides prepared for quoting, each with its facts, dates and citation.
Scored across 3 tools
get_page retrieves a specific page, search_content discovers pages, and usage_terms covers licensing/attribution — three clearly separate jobs with little risk of misselection. The only mild overlap is that search_content results already include answers and facts, so an agent might wonder when get_page is still needed, but the descriptions hint at full-page retrieval.
get_page and search_content follow a verb_noun pattern, while usage_terms is a bare noun phrase describing a resource rather than an action. This is a minor deviation but still readable and predictable within a three-tool set.
Three tools is lean but each earns its place: discovery, retrieval, and terms of use. It is slightly thin (no browse/list operation), but for a small content site the scope is reasonable rather than bloated.
The surface covers search, fetch, and licensing, which are the core needs for citing a site's content. However, there is no way to enumerate or browse all pages/sections, so an agent cannot discover content without a working query, and there is no bulk or sitemap-style access.
One page in full: the answer, the FAQ, the facts and the text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it does not disclose whether this is a read-only lookup, what happens with an invalid id, what permissions are required, or what shape the response takes. The phrase 'in full' hints at returning complete page content, but that is too vague for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 short and front-loaded, but its list ('the answer, the FAQ, the facts and the text') is cryptic rather than helpful. It avoids bloat but does not earn its place with clarifying detail.
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 one-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is still too sparse: it does not clarify the parameter, expected return, or when to call it instead of search_content or usage_terms. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly from this definition alone.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description never explains the single required parameter 'id'—whether it is a page ID, content ID, or some other identifier. The word 'page' weakly implies an identifier, but no format, constraints, or examples are added beyond the bare integer 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?
'One page in full: the answer, the FAQ, the facts and the text' implies retrieving a page's full content, but it does not state a clear verb-resource relation and never mentions the required page identifier. It gives no differentiation from search_content or usage_terms.
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 offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to the sibling search_content or usage_terms tools. Usage is only weakly implied by the tool name and the phrase 'One page in full.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search this site. Each result comes with a stand-alone answer, the facts worth citing, and how to attribute it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | What you are trying to answer. | |
| limit | No | 1-20. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses what each result contains (a stand-alone answer, citable facts, and attribution), but it omits operational details such as authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or result-count behavior.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no wasted wording. The second sentence efficiently explains the result shape.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values, and it does describe result composition. However, it does not cover limit behavior, pagination, or when to choose this tool over get_page, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about q or limit beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score 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 states a specific verb and resource: "Search this site." It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate the tool from the sibling get_page or explain the boundary between searching and fetching a page.
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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to the sibling get_page. An agent must infer that this is for discovery rather than direct page retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
What you may do with this content and how to attribute it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not state that the operation is a safe read, does not say whose terms are returned (this page's, the whole corpus's, or a platform-wide policy), and does not indicate whether the answer is static boilerplate or content-specific. The referent of 'this content' is left unresolved for a zero-parameter tool, which is the main behavioral question an agent would have.
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 short sentence with no filler, but it is structured as a sentence fragment describing the returned content rather than front-loading what the tool does. It is terse to the point of omitting the action verb.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool the surface area is small, and the description does convey the general subject matter (permitted uses and attribution). It falls short on the two things that actually matter here: that the tool returns these terms, and what scope of content the terms apply to.
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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description does not misleadingly imply hidden inputs.
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 phrase 'What you may do with this content and how to attribute it' points at licensing/attribution information, so the resource is roughly identifiable, but it is a noun phrase with no verb and no explicit statement that the tool retrieves terms. It also gives no signal distinguishing it from get_page or search_content, so an agent must infer that this is the licensing lookup.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus get_page or search_content, and no stated precondition such as 'call before reusing content'. The only implied usage is 'when you need attribution rules', which the agent must construct itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_pagesearch_contentusage_termsOfficial economic statistics, company filings, earnings calls and market data, with sources cited.
Living, source-backed timelines of long-running events, with a quote and source per entry.
Roboto videos, client interviews, articles and social posts with source citations.
Cited news briefs and observed-corpus context. Free public reads; archives $0.10 or seven for $0.50.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.