Return full public JSON for a WhatDoTheyKnow FOI request.
The response includes request metadata, public body details, requester details, state/status fields, and the visible info_request_events array containing correspondence text and attachment metadata where WhatDoTheyKnow exposes it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_slug | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by specifying what content is returned (metadata, public body, requester details, state, info_request_events) and adding a caveat about 'visible' events and 'where WhatDoTheyKnow exposes it,' which informs the agent about data availability constraints.
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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and provides a useful breakdown of the response structure. No filler or redundant phrases.
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 simple parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema present, the description is well-positioned. It lists the response contents and includes a caveat about visibility/exposure, which is sufficient for an agent to decide to use the tool. Slightly more detail on error cases would be nice, but it's not necessary given the output schema.
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 has one required parameter request_slug with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain what a request_slug is or how to obtain it. The only implicit hint is 'for a WhatDoTheyKnow FOI request,' which is too weak to compensate for the missing schema description.
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 opens with 'Return full public JSON for a WhatDoTheyKnow FOI request,' which is a specific verb and resource. The second sentence enumerates the contents (metadata, public body, requester, state, info_request_events), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_request_feed_items or create_request_record.
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 the tool is for retrieving a single request's full JSON, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. It gives clear context but no explicit guidance, so it falls at the implied-usage level.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct, but get_user_feed_items and get_user_requests both surface user activity, and get_request_feed_items vs get_request_detail could be confused. Descriptions help differentiate them, but the overlap creates minor ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (build_, create_, get_, list_, search_, update_). No mixing of conventions or vague verbs.
12 tools are well-scoped for the domain, covering read, search, write, and feed operations without bloat. The prompts-related tools are ancillary but not excessive.
Core workflows are covered: authority lookup, request search/detail, user requests, creation, and state updates. Missing user detail or direct authority request list can be worked around with existing search and feed tools.