Return the ENTIRE corpus including premium resource bodies in one document — the keyed deliverable of the Corpus/Enterprise license. Requires a Corpus- or Enterprise-tier api_key (a Starter key unlocks premium resources but NOT the corpus file); without an entitled key a payment-required/upgrade object is returned. The free, premium-stubbed version is get_corpus.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | Corpus/Enterprise license key (cg_...) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description fully discloses authentication requirements, potential upgrade object return, and that it's a single document. Includes key format (cg_...).
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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then conditions. No unnecessary words; every sentence earns its place.
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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, failure case, and alternative tool, making it complete for effective use.
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 already describes api_key as 'Corpus/Enterprise license key (cg_...)', but description adds context about entitlement requirements, Starter key insufficiency, and failure mode. Adds value beyond 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?
Description clearly states it returns the entire corpus including premium resource bodies, identifies it as the key deliverable of the Corpus/Enterprise license, and distinguishes from sibling get_corpus (free, premium-stubbed version).
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?
Explicitly specifies when to use (Corpus/Enterprise key required), what happens if not entitled (payment-required object returned), and mentions alternative get_corpus for free access.
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.
Most tools are clearly separated by resource type: articles, resources, corpus, stats, and articles. The main ambiguity is the access/pricing/payment cluster (`check_access`, `get_access_info`, `get_pricing`, `get_payment_info`), which agents could confuse despite distinct descriptions.
All tool names follow a consistent `verb_noun` pattern, using `get_*`, `list_*`, and `search_*` prefixes. The naming stays readable and predictable even with broader tools like `search` and `search_resources`.
14 tools is within the typical well-scoped range, and each major retrieval goal has a dedicated tool. It is slightly heavy because the access/pricing/payment information could arguably be consolidated, but it is not bloated.
The server covers discovery, listing, searching, fetching, corpus ingestion, editorial articles, stats, and access/pricing verification. As a read-only content/access server, full CRUD is not expected, though there is no direct category-based batch filter beyond a general search.