Get the full entry of one tool by id or name, including zh/en description, tags, and detail page links.
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_tool"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Tool id (e.g. 1) | |
| name | No | Exact tool name (e.g. ChatGPT) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing what the response contains (zh/en description, tags, detail page links), which matters since there is no output schema. It stops short of stating error behavior for missing ids or ambiguous names.
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?
A single sentence with the action and identifier front-loaded and the returned fields trailing as supporting detail. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema.
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 simple single-record read with full annotation coverage and fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose and return contents adequately. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior (neither id nor name supplied, or no match found), which an agent would need to call confidently.
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 both parameters already carry examples, so the baseline would be 3. The phrase 'by id or name' adds meaningful semantics the schema does not: the two parameters are alternative identifiers rather than both being required (required count is 0).
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get the full entry of one tool') and scopes it to a single record, which contrasts implicitly with the list-style siblings (list_categories, list_featured, latest_tools, search_tools). It does not name a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can guess this is the follow-up to a search or list call when full details are needed. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement, no guidance on choosing id versus name, and no mention of behavior when the tool is not found.
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.