get_protocolFetch details for one advertising protocol by its slug (e.g. 'openrtb-2', 'adcp', 'aamp', 'ucp'). Returns description, governance, evidence links, use cases, and dependencies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Protocol slug, e.g. 'openrtb-2' or 'adcp'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds the return fields but does not disclose additional traits like error handling, authorization, or rate limits.
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 with no fluff. It fronts the action and resource, then lists the return fields concisely.
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 one-parameter tool with good annotations, the description covers what it does and what it returns. It could mention behavior on invalid slugs, but overall it 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?
The schema defines 'slug' with examples 'openrtb-2' and 'adcp'. The description adds more examples ('aamp', 'ucp') and contextualizes the parameter, providing value beyond the schema.
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 details') and resource ('advertising protocol by its slug'), and distinguishes from siblings like search_protocols (which searches) and list_mcp_servers (which lists servers).
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 usage when you need details of a specific protocol, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like search_protocols for broader queries.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: fetching a single protocol, listing servers, searching glossary terms, and searching the protocol catalog. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (get_protocol, list_mcp_servers, search_glossary, search_protocols), making them predictable.
4 tools is on the lower side but appropriate for an informational directory. Each tool covers a necessary function without redundancy.
Covers the main information retrieval needs: get single protocol, search protocols, search glossary, list related servers. Missing an explicit 'list all protocols' but search_protocols likely fills that gap.