get_nc_wedding_vendorGet structured details for one venue or vendor using the category and slug returned by search_nc_wedding_directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| category | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the operation returns structured details and depends on prior search output, which is useful but still vague about what those details contain or whether results can be empty/stale.
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 that opens with the action and object, then immediately specifies the input source. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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 tool has no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what the agent can expect. 'Structured details' is minimally informative but does not define the fields, the scope of vendor categories, or any edge cases. Given the simple two-parameter read operation, the gap is not severe, but more output context would help.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining that both parameters are taken directly from search_nc_wedding_directory, preventing an agent from guessing or fabricating slugs. The category enum is already available in the schema, so ambiguity there is low.
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 specifies a verb ('Get'), a resource ('structured details for one venue or vendor'), and the exact input provenance ('using the category and slug returned by search_nc_wedding_directory'). It distinguishes this tool from the search sibling by making it a single-item detail fetcher versus a directory lookup.
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 gives clear contextual guidance: this tool should be called after search_nc_wedding_directory, using the category and slug that search returns. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the search prerequisite, but the prerequisite is strong enough to guide correct usage.
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 covers a distinct step: budgeting, venue cost estimation, vendor discovery and detail retrieval, marriage license lookup, and vendor contact. Even though search and get both involve vendors, one is for discovery while the other fetches a specific listing's details.
All tool names use a verb-first snake_case format and most include an NC wedding qualifier, such as build_nc_wedding_budget and search_nc_wedding_directory. The one exception, request_vendor_contact, still follows the same verb_noun pattern, so there is no meaningful convention break.
Six tools is a well-scoped size for a wedding planning guide. Each tool addresses a necessary planning action without unnecessary redundancy or expansion.
The toolset covers the core wedding planning workflow: budget creation, venue cost estimation, vendor discovery and detail retrieval, vendor contact, and marriage license rules. There are no obvious dead ends since search leads to get, and get leads to contact.