Gets the HTML embed code for a Riddle by its UUID. The code is returned regardless of publish state, but the URL it embeds will not serve the Riddle until it is published.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| UUID | Yes | The UUID of the Riddle you want to retrieve the HTML embed code for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses an important behavioral nuance: the embed code is returned regardless of publish state, but the embedded URL only serves once published. This adds meaningful context that annotations do not capture.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by a valuable caveat. No filler or redundant content.
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 read-only tool with strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains what is returned, the key publish-state caveat, and identifies the input. It does not describe the exact structure of the HTML embed code, but that is not essential for tool selection and invocation.
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%, and the single UUID parameter is already clearly documented in the schema. The description mostly restates 'by its UUID' without adding extra format, constraints, or examples, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Gets') with a precise resource ('HTML embed code for a Riddle by its UUID'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like riddle_get or riddle_qr_code. It also adds a meaningful scope statement about publish state that clarifies the tool's exact function.
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 implies when to use this tool: when needing the HTML embed code for a specific Riddle UUID. It also provides useful context about publish-state behavior, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the 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.
Each tool has a clear, unique purpose. The riddle_builder_* variants are distinct by Riddle type, questionBank_* and riddleTemplate_* cover separate objects, and stats_* differ by scope. No two tools appear to perform the same function.
Naming is largely consistent with domain prefixes (riddle_, questionBank_, riddleTemplate_, stats_, project_, palette_, reference_). Minor deviations like riddle_account_list vs. riddle_list and whoami (no prefix) and riddle_get_embed_code vs. riddle_qr_code slightly break the pattern, but overall it is predictable.
With 62 tools, the server is far beyond the typical 3-15 well-scoped range. While each tool is functional and the breadth reflects the platform's complexity, the sheer number makes it heavy and increases the cognitive load for an agent, suggesting over-granularity.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: create (builder variants), read (get/list), update (builder_update, rename), delete, publish/unpublish, tagging, templates, question banks, stats, projects, palettes, and reference documentation. No obvious domain operation is missing.