Retrieve the complete canonical Heropedia Role content as raw markdown. Fetch either by unique entry id (preferred after LIST) or by exact hero_name + role_name (when both names are already known). Not a regex tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| hero_name | No | ||
| role_name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It adds that content is canonical, returned as raw markdown, that lookup requires exact names, and that regex/fuzzy matching is not supported.
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?
Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The action and resource lead, lookup modes follow, and the exclusion is stated at the end.
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 read tool with a non-trivial oneOf schema and no output schema, the description explains both valid lookup modes and the output format. It does not discuss not-found behavior, but that is a minor gap given the read-only, idempotent annotations.
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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter semantics. It explains id as a unique entry id preferred after LIST and explains hero_name + role_name as an exact-name alternative, which adds meaningful use-case meaning beyond the raw oneOf 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?
States a specific verb (Retrieve), a specific resource (complete canonical Heropedia Role content), and the exact output form (raw markdown). It also distinguishes itself from listing tools by specifying lookup by unique id or exact hero_name + role_name and by noting it is not a regex tool.
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?
Gives clear context: use id after LIST, use exact hero_name + role_name when both names are known. It does not explicitly name the alternative tools, but 'after LIST' and the sibling names make the when-to-use distinction clear; 'Not a regex tool' rules out fuzzy use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.