wrs_get_guideOne guide in full as Markdown (sections, checklist, common questions) with its URL, dates and legal-source note. Pass the slug from wrs_list_guides or wrs_search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Guide slug, e.g. how-to-prepare-for-a-deposition (translated guides use their own slug from wrs_list_guides). | |
| language | No | en (default) or es, tl, zh, vi, ko. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / languageAdded value: +{
+ "description": "en (default) or es, tl, zh, vi, ko.",
+ "enum": [
+ "en",
+ "es",
+ "tl",
+ "zh",
+ "vi",
+ "ko"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionPrevious value: -"Guide slug, e.g. how-to-prepare-for-a-deposition."New value: +"Guide slug, e.g. how-to-prepare-for-a-deposition (translated guides use their own slug from wrs_list_guides)."Input schema / properties / slug / patternRemoved value: -"^[a-z0-9-]+$"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description goes further by disclosing the actual payload: Markdown body, URL, dates and a legal-source note. Since there is no output schema, this return-shape disclosure is the only place an agent learns what comes back. It stops short of pagination or size limits, but nothing misleads.
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 dense sentences with the return contents front-loaded and the required input handled second. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing piece: what the returned Markdown contains. The language parameter and its default are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given 100% coverage, but a note on translation behavior would close the remaining gap.
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 coverage is 100%, so both slug and language are already fully documented in the schema (including the enum and the translated-slug caveat). The description only adds the provenance of the slug value, which is minor beyond the schema's own example. 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+resource: retrieve ONE guide in full, and enumerates the content shape (sections, checklist, common questions). 'One guide in full' implicitly contrasts with wrs_list_guides, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.
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?
'Pass the slug from wrs_list_guides or wrs_search' tells the agent the prerequisite discovery step, which is genuine usage context. However, it never states when NOT to use this tool, nor contrasts the retrieval semantics against siblings beyond the implied slug source.
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.