Get one service by name, slug or keyword (any of the 4 languages; aliases: service=, topic=, name=). lang (alias language): de,en,ru,sr.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_service"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| topic | No | ||
| service | No | ||
| language | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add useful lookup behavior: it supports multiple identifier types, aliases, and four languages. However, it does not disclose output shape, match behavior, or what happens when no or multiple services match.
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 very concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes functional information about parameters and aliases. There is no filler.
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 six optional parameters with zero schema coverage and no output schema, so the description needs to be relatively rich. It covers lookup semantics and languages but leaves ambiguity around the query/slug mapping and return value expectations.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains aliases for service, topic, and name, and gives language values for lang/language, but the 'query' parameter is only indirectly referenced as 'keyword' and no parameter combination rules are given.
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 action ('Get one service') and a clear resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_services by emphasizing singular retrieval via name, slug, or keyword.
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 a targeted lookup use case and provides search mechanisms, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus get_services or other siblings. The singular 'one service' is the only differentiation signal.
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.