get_answerGet one Answer — question, grounded answer, visible citations — by id or slug, in the Answer contract v0 shape (ANSWERS-PROGRAM.md). Read-only. Returns null if not found.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The Answer's stable id or slug. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| answer | 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": {
+ "answer": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "answer"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: that the call returns null rather than erroring when the record is missing, and that data follows the Answers contract v0 shape.
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?
One dense sentence with the identity, returned fields, lookup key, contract, read-only status, and not-found semantics, all with no filler or redundancy.
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 single-parameter lookup with an output schema present, the description supplies everything needed: what is fetched, how it is keyed, the contract shape of the payload, and the null-when-absent behavior. Return-value structure is already delegated to 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented as 'the Answer's stable id or slug.' The description mirrors that same 'id or slug' phrasing without adding format, example, or resolution details, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 precise verb+resource ('Get one Answer'), and enumerates the payload contents (question, grounded answer, visible citations). 'By id or slug' plus the contract reference distinguishes it clearly from the sibling list_answers and search_answers, which operate over collections.
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?
'By id or slug' implies this is the direct-lookup path when an identifier is already known, which contrasts implicitly with search_answers/list_answers. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer it over those siblings, nor any prerequisites (e.g., what to do when the id is unknown).
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.