Get the full extracted text of a specific Canton Network whitepaper by slug (e.g. 'canton-network-whitepaper'): title, tag, page count, PDF link, and body text (up to ~50k chars). Canton-only. Call list_whitepapers first to obtain valid slugs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Whitepaper slug, e.g. "canton-network-whitepaper" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: a ~50k character truncation ceiling and the exact payload shape returned, which an agent would not otherwise know.
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 purpose, then return contents, then scope constraint and prerequisite. No filler; every clause carries information.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating returned fields and the size cap. Combined with annotations covering safety and closed-world scope, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.
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% and the single parameter is already documented, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes beyond it by explaining how to obtain a valid slug (via list_whitepapers) and giving a concrete format example, adding operational meaning to the parameter.
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?
Specific verb and resource ("Get the full extracted text of a specific Canton Network whitepaper") plus an explicit inventory of what comes back (title, tag, page count, PDF link, body text). The "Canton-only" scope and the slug example make it trivially distinguishable from list_whitepapers and generic search tools.
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?
States the prerequisite workflow explicitly: "Call list_whitepapers first to obtain valid slugs," and constrains scope with "Canton-only." It doesn't spell out when to prefer this over e.g. semantic_search for partial content, but the retrieval workflow is unambiguous.
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.