Fetch the full Outdoors record for a search result id (e.g. "trail:bear-lake-loop", "park:rocky-mountain-national-park"). Returns the complete text of the record plus the canonical theoutdoorsapp.com URL for citation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds context about returning text and URL but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication needs or rate limits. It is adequate but not enhanced beyond annotations.
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 main purpose and follow-up details. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.
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 simple tool (one parameter, no output schema, annotations covering safety), the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns. Could be slightly more precise about the return format (e.g., JSON structure), but overall sufficient.
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 schema provides only a type for 'id' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that id is a search result id and gives specific examples (e.g., 'trail:bear-lake-loop'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema.
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 states it fetches the full Outdoors record for a search result id, providing examples of id format and specifying the return includes complete text and a canonical URL. This differentiates it from sibling tools like trails.get or parks.get.
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 implies use after obtaining a search result id ('for a search result id'), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like trails.get or parks.get. No direct mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
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.
Multiple search tools (search, search.global, nearMe.search) overlap significantly, potentially confusing an agent. Safety overview vs. individual alerts also cause minor ambiguity, though most resource-specific tools are distinct.
Most tools follow a consistent resource.action pattern (e.g., trails.search, parks.get). However, exceptions like 'search', 'fetch', and 'nearMe.search' break the pattern, introducing mild inconsistency.
20 tools cover the diverse outdoors domain (trails, parks, campgrounds, weather, etc.) without being excessive. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count fits well.
The tool set covers the core read-only needs for outdoor trip planning, including search, detail retrieval, weather, and safety info. Minor gaps like missing state/region listing or navigation features are acceptable given the read-only scope.
