fetchFetch the full record for one MeshMarket capability by its id (slug) — what it does, what it costs, who provides it, and how reliable it has been.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | capability id/slug from search |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context about the return contents (costs, provider, reliability) that goes beyond the annotation. No behavioral side effects or error conditions are disclosed, but for a simple read-only fetch, the description provides sufficient transparency.
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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Fetch' and includes the essential details. Every phrase adds value, with no redundant or filler content.
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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the returned record's contents (function, cost, provider, reliability). It does not explain the return format or mention prerequisites like needing a search first, but given the tool's simplicity and good schema/annotation coverage, the description is sufficiently complete.
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 the schema description already defines 'id' as 'capability id/slug from search.' The description only repeats this with 'by its id (slug),' adding no new meaning. Since the schema handles the parameter semantics fully, the description earns the baseline score of 3.
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 'Fetch' and identifies the resource as 'one MeshMarket capability' by id, listing the record's contents (what it does, costs, provider, reliability). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools that likely return lists, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 that an id/slug is required, which hints that a search must occur first, but it doesn't explicitly state this or mention alternatives. It says 'by its id (slug)' but stops short of saying 'use search to find the id first' or 'prefer this over search when you already have the id.' This leaves the usage context mostly implied rather than explicit.
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: search and mesh_discover both enumerate the catalog, while biz-analyze, task-analysis, and task-orchestrate all produce structured plans from a described situation. This will cause agents to misselect between them despite otherwise distinct tools.
Naming is inconsistent: mesh_* tools use snake_case, most capability tools use hyphenated lowercase names, and a few (fetch, search) are bare verbs. There is no single verb-object or noun-verb pattern that holds across the set.
28 tools is on the heavy side, but the marketplace concept justifies including many callable capabilities. However, the mix of platform tools and unrelated utilities makes the surface feel cluttered and hard to navigate.
The core marketplace lifecycle is well covered: signup, discover, fetch, publish, delegate, refer, follow, subscribe, and balance. Minor gaps exist (no unpublish or edit for listings), but most agent workflows can proceed without dead ends.