get_utility_detailsFree and read-only; never charges. Use after search_utilities to see everything needed before paying: method, URL, price, payment terms, input fields, a valid example body and an example output.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| utility | Yes | Utility id, route key, path or full URL, e.g. vendor.intelligence, json-repair, /v1/paid/dns-lookup. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, and the description adds that the call is free and never charges. It also lists the information returned, though it does not discuss auth or rate limits, so it is meaningfully additive but not exhaustive.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the key safety and cost traits, then usage and returned content. There is no padding 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?
For a one-parameter read-only details tool, the description covers cost, safety, relationship to search_utilities, and the returned contract fields. With no output schema, listing those returned fields is especially useful and sufficient.
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 utility parameter already documents ids, route keys, paths, and full URLs with examples. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond the schema baseline.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: get a utility's full contract, including method, URL, price, payment terms, input fields, and examples. It also distinguishes this details call from search_utilities, so an agent can tell what this tool is for without opening the schema.
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?
It explicitly says to use this after search_utilities and explains the condition: to see everything needed before paying. That names the relevant alternative and gives a clear selection context for this tool.
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.