get_toolFetch the full record for one tool by slug: description, install/connect method, capabilities, category tags, and every cited source (with source URLs) backing the record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The tool's slug, from search_tools results |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return content in detail, which is helpful. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., missing slug), permissions, or explicitly confirm that this is a read-only operation, though 'fetch' implies safety.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and includes a compact list of return fields. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema. The description adequately covers what the tool returns, making it self-sufficient. The schema covers the input, so no additional operational details are needed.
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%, with the only parameter 'slug' fully described as coming from search_tools results. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific action: 'Fetch the full record for one tool by slug.' It also enumerates the record's contents (description, install/connect method, capabilities, category tags, cited sources), distinguishing it from the sibling tool search_tools, which presumably returns a list.
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 implies usage: you need a slug, and the schema adds that the slug comes from search_tools results. It does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a simple fetch-by-ID operation.
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.
get_tool fetches a specific record by slug, while search_tools discovers tools via query/filters. Their purposes are distinct with no overlap, so an agent can easily choose the right one.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'get' and 'search' are clear action verbs, and the object 'tool' is used singular/plural appropriately. Naming is predictable.
With only 2 tools, the server feels minimal but not inappropriate: a read-only registry requires only search and retrieve-by-id. Still, it's on the thin side compared to typical servers.
The registry covers the core read operations: discovery (search) and detailed retrieval (get). Missing write operations (create/update/delete) suggest an intentional read-only scope, but there's no dead end for typical use cases. A minor gap is the lack of an explicit list-all mechanism, though search likely handles it.