fetchReturn the full Markdown of one search result by id. Free lessons and blog posts always; Pro lessons only when the connected Promptafire account has Pro access, otherwise a short locked notice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | An id returned by search |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| url | Yes | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| metadata | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: free content is always available, Pro lessons require an authorized account, otherwise a locked notice is returned. This is exactly the kind of conditional/permission behavior an agent needs to know.
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 sentences, with the core operation in the first sentence and the access conditional in the second. No filler or repetition; each sentence adds necessary information.
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 one-parameter read tool with a full output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the return behavior, the id source, and the main conditional case (Pro access). Nothing essential for invoking the tool 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?
There is only one parameter, id, and the input schema already documents it as 'An id returned by search' with 100% coverage. The description reinforces that the id is a search-result id but adds no new syntax or format details, so the schema carries the semantic weight; baseline 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 opens with a specific action and object: 'Return the full Markdown of one search result by id,' and it clarifies content types and access behavior. It gives clear scope, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like read_lesson/read_post beyond the 'search result' framing, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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 establishes a clear usage context: after a search, by id, to obtain full Markdown, with access caveats for Pro lessons. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the 'search result by id' constraint is sufficient guidance for a single-parameter fetch tool.
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.
Most tools are distinct, but fetch overlaps with read_lesson and read_post since both can return lesson/post markdown, and search/search_curriculum have similar scopes. The descriptions help clarify some boundaries, such as search returning ids for fetch, but an agent could still be uncertain which retrieval tool to use.
Tool names mostly follow a verb_noun pattern like list_modules, read_lesson, and get_module. The main inconsistencies are the bare verbs fetch and search, plus the mixed use of get versus read for similar retrieval actions.
Eight tools is well-scoped for a content platform covering curriculum browsing, lesson reading, blog posts, and search. Each tool has a reasonable place in the workflow without excessive redundancy.
The tool surface covers the full content lifecycle: discovering tracks/modules, listing posts, searching lessons and posts, retrieving module metadata, and reading full lesson or post markdown. Access-level handling is included, so there are no obvious dead ends for the stated purpose.