Get the summary and URL of a specific SearchShopAI Research Note by its slug (returned by search_research_notes).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The note slug, e.g. 'the-ai-attribution-blind-spot' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns the summary and URL, which is useful behavioral context. It does not contradict the annotations and provides some extra value beyond the structured data.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place; no redundant filler.
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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential info: what the tool does, what it returns, and where the parameter comes from. It is complete for the tool's complexity.
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% for the single parameter 'slug', so the baseline is 3. The description adds provenance by noting the slug comes from search_research_notes, which goes beyond the schema's example and clarifies the parameter's source.
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 the action ('Get'), the resource ('Research Note'), and the specific output ('summary and URL'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_research_notes by focusing on a single note identified by slug, which is precise and unambiguous.
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?
It provides clear contextual guidance by noting the slug is 'returned by search_research_notes', implying a two-step workflow: search first, then retrieve details. This indicates when to use this tool relative to its sibling. It lacks explicit exclusions, but the workflow hint is valuable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.