Retrieve comprehensive details for a specific disc by numeric ID or string slug, including flight ratings, stability score, flight class, flight tag, available plastics, and current market rank.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Stable disc ID or slug (e.g. 'innova-destroyer', 'discraft-buzzz', 'axiom-crave') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Stable disc ID or slug (e.g. 'innova-destroyer', 'discraft-buzzz')"New value: +"Stable disc ID or slug (e.g. 'innova-destroyer', 'discraft-buzzz', 'axiom-crave')"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden. The verb 'Retrieve' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects, which is sufficient disclosure for a retrieval tool. It doesn't mention potential limitations like caching or data freshness, but the core behavior is transparent.
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, well-structured sentence that lists the purpose and the data fields. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it concise and scannable.
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 tool's simplicity (one input parameter) and that the output fields are enumerated (flight ratings, stability score, etc.), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to know what to expect. It doesn't need an explicit output schema because the description already outlines the return values.
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 schema description for the 'id' parameter already covers the input format with examples and clarification that it accepts stable ID or slug. The tool description adds nothing beyond that, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 that the tool retrieves comprehensive details for a specific disc by ID or slug, listing the types of information returned. This distinctly differentiates it from siblings like search_discs (which likely searches) and list_brands.
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 mentions input via numeric ID or string slug, which is a usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives (e.g., 'use this when you have an exact ID, not when searching'), so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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.