render_kb_articleShow an official Microsoft Knowledge Base article to the user as a card with its title, highlights, and link to support.microsoft.com. Use when the user asks to see a specific KB article.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kb_id | Yes | KB number, e.g. 'KB5044284' or '5044284'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the article is rendered as a card with only title, highlights, and link, rather than full article content.
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 earn their place: the first explains what the tool does and its output format, the second states the invocation condition. No redundant or vague wording.
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?
The tool has a single parameter, full schema coverage, and annotations covering the read-only nature. The description supplies the expected card presentation. For a low-complexity rendering tool, nothing essential is missing.
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% and the single kb_id parameter is fully documented with format examples. The description's mention of 'a specific KB article' aligns with the parameter but adds no new semantic detail, so the 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('official Microsoft Knowledge Base article'), and describes the output form: 'a card with its title, highlights, and link to support.microsoft.com.' This differentiates it from siblings like get_kb_article, which likely fetches raw article data rather than rendering a user-facing card.
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 includes a clear usage trigger: 'Use when the user asks to see a specific KB article.' It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives such as get_kb_article or search_kb, so it falls just short of a 5.
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.