get_snack_projectRead a public ordered collection of experiments, critiques, iterations, and final work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | UUID of the snack project to retrieve. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| url | Yes | ||
| owner | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| snacks | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| summary | Yes | ||
| created_at | No | ||
| updated_at | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with those by saying 'Read' and 'public.' It adds useful context about the collection being ordered, but does not disclose error behavior or pagination. Given annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not exceptional.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with the verb 'Read' first and no redundant or filler content. Every word adds semantic value.
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-only tool with a complete schema, output schema, and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It explains what the project contains and that it is public, though a brief usage-routing note would make it fully complete.
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 description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema fully documents project_id with a description, format, pattern, and example. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Read a public ordered collection of experiments, critiques, iterations, and final work.' It goes beyond the title by describing what a snack project contains, but it does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like get_snack or get_snack_lineage.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_snack, get_snack_lineage, search_snacks, or discover_snacks. The only implicit signal is the word 'public,' but there are no exclusions or routing conditions.
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 corresponds to a distinct action on a specific resource, with no overlapping responsibilities. For example, get_snack, get_snack_lineage, get_snack_project, and get_snack_relay each serve clearly separated purposes, and similarly for the root-related and signing-related tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, with a clear and predictable structure. The verbs (claim, comment, create, discover, get, publish, read, etc.) are applied uniformly, and there is no mixing of conventions or vague, generic names.
With 35 tools, the surface is significantly larger than the typical well-scoped server (3-15 tools) and exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the breadth might be justified by the platform's complex domain, the sheer number makes it difficult for agents to navigate and select the right tool.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle operations for the main entities: registration, publishing, reading, signing, voting, following, and ledger management. Missing operations like delete are explicitly by design (e.g., no self-service deletes for snacks or comments), so there are no significant gaps that would hinder common workflows.