get_storyReturn one validated public story by its exact stable ID, including its canonical sources, evidence clocks, publication state, and release IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feed | Yes | ||
| story | Yes | ||
| schema | Yes | ||
| release | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context about 'validated public' stories and the kinds of data returned, but it does not disclose behaviors such as not-found handling or access limitations beyond the public/validated qualifier.
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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then efficiently lists the key components of the response. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant repetition of the title or schema.
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 simple single-parameter read operation with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is largely complete. It specifies what the story includes and the identifier requirement; the only minor gap is explicit guidance about when to use search_stories instead, which is somewhat inferable from the siblings.
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?
The input schema only defines 'id' as a string with length constraints, providing no semantic meaning. The description compensates by clarifying that the parameter is an 'exact stable ID', which is critical for correct invocation and distinguishes it from other identifier types.
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 states a specific action ('Return one validated public story') on a clearly defined resource identified by 'exact stable ID', and enumerates the returned content. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_stories or latest_stories, which clearly operate over collections rather than a single known ID.
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 phrase 'by its exact stable ID' implies the tool should be used when the caller already knows the stable identifier, and the singular 'one' contrasts with search/list siblings. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus search_stories, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: health check, exact story retrieval, latest feed listing, capability introspection, and search. There is no significant overlap that would cause misselection, as get_story is by exact ID, search_stories is flexible querying, and latest_stories is a chronological feed.
Names are all lowercase with underscores, and most follow a verb_noun pattern (get_health, get_story, list_capabilities, search_stories). latest_stories is the outlier, using an adjective-noun form, which is a minor deviation but still readable and predictable.
Five tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and covers the server's stated purpose of editorial discovery without redundancy or bloat. Each tool earns its place for a focused read-only surface.
The toolset covers core discovery workflows—retrieval by ID, listing, search, and capabilities. Minor gaps include lack of explicit pagination control for latest_stories (though 'bounded slice' implies some limit) and no filtering endpoint beyond search, but these are workable.