Given a URL (or key), show which playbook it resolves to — always verify after writing a match rule.
Globs make it easy to write rules that "look right but never match" (one `*` short, one path
level too many) — and in production the only symptom is visitors silently getting the default
playbook, with no error anywhere.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | ||
| url | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the responsibility. It uses 'show' to imply a read-only operation and adds valuable context about silent production failures, which is beyond what structured data would convey. Yet it does not explicitly rule out side effects or discuss permissions, leaving minor gaps.
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 only two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the second sentence adding relevant motivation. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.
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 output schema exists, so return details are covered. The description provides essential context about match-rule pitfalls and the production impact, making the tool's value clear. However, the lack of parameter explanation prevents full completeness.
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 input schema has two params (key, url) with no descriptions and 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It only says 'URL (or key)' without explaining what a key is, how the two params interact, or required formats. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.
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 clearly states the tool's function: given a URL or key, show which playbook it resolves to. The verb 'show' and the resource 'playbook' are specific, and the tool is distinguished from siblings like list_page_contexts and upsert_page_context by its resolution focus.
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 explicitly advises to 'always verify after writing a match rule', giving a clear when-to-use context. It also explains the danger of glob-matching pitfalls, emphasizing the tool's role in verification. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls 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.