Fetch one published guide, structured as intro + sections, with its canonical URL for citation. Slugs come from search-guides. Pass brief:true on a voice call or when you only need enough to answer one question — the full read is long.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Guide slug from search-guides | |
| brief | No | Short read: the first few sections, trimmed. Use on voice. | |
| sections | No | How many sections to return (1-12, default 12; 4 when brief) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / briefAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Short read: the first few sections, trimmed. Use on voice.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / sectionsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "How many sections to return (1-12, default 12; 4 when brief)",
+ "type": "number"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a structured guide with a canonical URL, and that the full read can be long, with a brief mode as a lighter alternative. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not cover error cases or access restrictions.
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?
Two compact sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance for brief is placed where it matters.
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?
The description covers the main return shape, the source of slugs, and the brief-mode tradeoff. Given there is no output schema, a little more detail on what 'sections' contains or how to handle missing guides would elevate it, but it is adequate for a simple fetch 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining where slugs come from and when to use brief, which supplements the schema descriptions nicely.
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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('one published guide'), and the expected structure ('intro + sections, with its canonical URL'). It also distinguishes itself from search-guides by explicitly noting slugs come from that sibling tool.
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 clearly says to use brief:true on voice calls or when only a short answer is needed, and it points to search-guides for obtaining slugs. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool versus other retrieval tools, but the context is sufficient.
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.