Get one published MCP server by its slug.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"slug": "<slug>"
},
"name": "get_listing"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The listing slug. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered without the description. The description adds one real behavioral detail — only published servers are retrievable — but says nothing about not-found behavior or the returned payload. Modest value on top of rich annotations.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the key qualifier ('published') appears before the lookup mechanism.
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 one-parameter read tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, this is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is that, with no output schema, the description doesn't indicate what a returned listing contains or how a missing slug is reported.
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 slug parameter already carries its pattern and length constraints, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates 'by its slug' and adds no meaning about format, case sensitivity, or slug resolution.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one published MCP server'), and the singular-plus-slug framing clearly separates it from the list_*/search_listings siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it isn't a textbook 5.
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 word 'published' implies the tool only resolves live listings, which is a useful usage signal. However, it never says when to prefer this over search_listings or what to do when the slug is unknown (error vs. empty), so the guidance is only implied.
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.