get_articleFull text (intro, sections, FAQ) of one guide/authority/regional page, with business facts already filled in. Use to answer detailed questions about ordering, delivery, testing, teens, wholesale terms, or growing topics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Article slug, e.g. 'wholesale-cannabis-clones' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that the article text is pre-filled with business facts, which is a behavioral detail. It does not disclose any side effects, but given the annotations, this is sufficient.
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 concise—two sentences—and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and includes specific use cases without unnecessary 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?
Given the simplicity of the schema (one parameter) and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns and when to use it. It also lists example topics, making it complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it.
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 parameter 'slug' is fully described in the schema with an example. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the slug itself, only that it identifies a single article page, which is redundant. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 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 defines the tool's function: returning the full text of a single guide/authority/regional page. It lists specific use cases (ordering, delivery, testing, etc.) and distinguishes it from listing/search tools by focusing on one article with pre-filled business facts.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use to answer detailed questions about...'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or give negative usage cases, so it falls short of full explicitness.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.