Fetch one full Agent Card by public agentId (same ID used in /t/{id} and /b/{id}). Returns structured profile fields, trustScore, verification, and canonical URLs for humans and machines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agentId | Yes | Public AgentID, e.g. TG-S-839201 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / agentIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Public AgentID, e.g. TG-S-839201",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / trusgentIdRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Public AgentID, e.g. TG-S-839201",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "trusgentId"
-]New value: +[
+ "agentId"
+]Input schema / properties / trusgentId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Public Agent ID, e.g. TG-S-839201"New value: +"Public AgentID, e.g. TG-S-839201"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return payload — structured profile fields, trustScore, verification, and canonical URLs — which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of noting error behavior for unknown IDs.
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, zero waste. The lookup scope is front-loaded and the return contents follow immediately, so an agent gets purpose and payload in one pass.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back (profile fields, trustScore, verification, canonical URLs). It is nearly complete for a single-fetch tool but does not address lookup failure or how it relates to sibling single-agent tools like get_merged_profile.
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% for the single agentId parameter, giving a baseline of 3. The description goes slightly beyond by anchoring the ID's provenance ('same ID used in /t/{id} and /b/{id}'), clarifying which identifier form is expected, though the schema example already helps.
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 and resource ('Fetch one full Agent Card by public agentId') and scopes the lookup to a single agent. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like get_merged_profile or verify_agent, so an agent still has to infer which single-agent tool it wants.
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?
Usage is implied by 'by public agentId' — use this when you have a known ID and want the full card. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as search_agents for discovery or verify_agent for trust checks.
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.