get_pack_toolsGet tool definitions for a specific pack (e.g., 'weather', 'polygon-io'). Returns tool names, descriptions, parameters, and requirements. Use before calling a tool to verify its interface.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Pack slug (e.g., weather, pokemon, github) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "connect": {
- "description": "Connection instructions",
- "properties": {
- "claude_code": {
- "description": "Claude Code CLI command",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "claude_desktop": {
- "properties": {
- "mcpServers": {
- "type": "object"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
- },
- "gateway_url": {
- "description": "MCP gateway URL for the pack",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "slug": {
- "description": "Pack slug",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "tool_count": {
- "description": "Number of tools in the pack",
- "type": "number"
- },
- "tools": {
- "description": "List of tools in the pack",
- "items": {
- "properties": {
- "description": {
- "description": "Tool description",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "name": {
- "description": "Tool name",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "parameters": {
- "description": "Tool input schema",
- "type": "object"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "name",
- "description",
- "parameters"
- ],
- "type": "object"
- },
- "type": "array"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "slug",
- "gateway_url",
- "tool_count",
- "tools",
- "connect"
- ],
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullInput schema / examplesPrevious value: -[
- {
- "slug": "weather"
- },
- {
- "slug": "stocks"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "slug": "weather"
+ },
+ {
+ "slug": "polygon-io"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "connect": {
+ "description": "Connection instructions",
+ "properties": {
+ "claude_code": {
+ "description": "Claude Code CLI command",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "claude_desktop": {
+ "properties": {
+ "mcpServers": {
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "gateway_url": {
+ "description": "MCP gateway URL for the pack",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "slug": {
+ "description": "Pack slug",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "tool_count": {
+ "description": "Number of tools in the pack",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "tools": {
+ "description": "List of tools in the pack",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "description": {
+ "description": "Tool description",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Tool name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "parameters": {
+ "description": "Tool input schema",
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name",
+ "description",
+ "parameters"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "slug",
+ "gateway_url",
+ "tool_count",
+ "tools",
+ "connect"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "slug": "weather"
+ },
+ {
+ "slug": "stocks"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, read-only lookup (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful disclosure of the return content ('tool names, descriptions, parameters, and requirements'), but does not go beyond that with rate limits, caching, or failure behavior.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then usage, with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool, though the example duplication with the schema is slightly redundant.
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-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and when to call it. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the sibling routing detail is left implicit.
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 description coverage is 100% and there is a single well-documented 'slug' parameter with its own examples. The description's inline pack examples ('weather', 'polygon-io') largely duplicate what the schema already provides, so it adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema baseline.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('tool definitions for a specific pack') and grounds it with concrete examples ('weather', 'polygon-io'). It is clearly distinguishable from the resource itself, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like discover_tools or list_packs.
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 gives explicit timing guidance: 'Use before calling a tool to verify its interface.' This tells the agent when the tool is valuable. However, it names no alternative and provides no exclusion conditions (e.g., when to prefer discover_tools instead).
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.