get_frameworkRead one framework in full, including its definition, sections, related pages, and FAQs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Framework slug, e.g. proof-gap, scale, lopaft, eight-seats. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| framework | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "framework": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "slug": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "slug",
+ "url"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "framework"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying that the full framework includes definition, sections, related pages, and FAQs, setting expectations for response content without contradicting 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?
Single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with verb and scope, then enumerates contents.
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?
With one well-documented parameter, output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly. No critical gaps.
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% with slug's description including examples. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema carries the burden; baseline 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?
States a specific verb 'Read' and resource 'one framework in full', and enumerates contents (definition, sections, related pages, FAQs). This clearly distinguishes it from list_frameworks and other get_* tools by resource type.
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 explicit guidance on when to choose this over list_frameworks or other getters. The use case is implied by 'Read one framework in full' – retrieve a single framework – but no alternatives or exclusions are named.
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.