Search or fetch posts from the MetaMask Embedded Wallets community forum (builder.metamask.io).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Search query, e.g. 'popup blocked safari', 'JWT error', 'Android unstable connection' | |
| topic_id | No | Discourse topic ID to fetch the full discussion thread |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal context (the forum URL) but does not elaborate on pagination, result structure, or whether query and topic_id can be combined.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without redundant details.
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?
Given the simple read-only nature, good annotations, and complete schema, the description is sufficient. It lacks details on result formatting or parameter interaction, but these are not critical for a search/fetch tool with no required parameters.
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%, with detailed descriptions for both query and topic_id. The description's 'Search or fetch posts' reflects these parameters but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states the action ('Search or fetch posts') and the specific resource ('MetaMask Embedded Wallets community forum'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_docs that target documentation.
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?
The description makes it clear that this tool is for community forum posts, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, such as 'for documentation use search_docs'.
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 targets a distinct resource: documentation pages, example code, SDK source, community posts, and docs search. The two search tools are clearly separated by source (docs vs community). No overlapping purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_ for fetching specific resources, search_ for searching. Naming is uniform and predictable.
Five tools is well-scoped for a documentation-focused server. Each tool fills a distinct role without redundancy or unnecessary bloat.
The tool surface covers the full discovery and retrieval lifecycle for documentation, examples, SDK sources, and community content. No obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.
