dp_get_toolFetch a single privacy tool's full Privacy Protocol record by slug — description, ADO score, jurisdiction, encryption, PII requirements, platforms, and audit status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Tool slug, e.g. 'proton', 'signal', 'mullvad'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionPrevious value: -"Tool slug, e.g. 'proton-mail', 'signal', 'mullvad'."New value: +"Tool slug, e.g. 'proton', 'signal', 'mullvad'."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true, the safety profile is already known. The description adds value by enumerating the exact record contents (description, ADO score, jurisdiction, etc.), giving the agent a clearer picture of the return payload. This goes beyond the annotation's basic read-only guarantee.
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 one sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. Every element (record scope, slug identifier, field list) earns its place, making it both concise and informative.
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 parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description is sufficient. It lists the record's fields, covering return content, and clearly states the lookup mechanism. It could mention behavior for unknown slugs, but that is a minor gap for a getter tool.
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 already provides 100% coverage for the single 'slug' parameter, including a clear description and examples. The description merely repeats 'by slug' without adding new semantic depth, so it does not meaningfully enhance what the schema already offers.
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 tool fetches a single privacy tool's full record by slug, listing the exact fields included. It is specific about the verb (fetch), resource (privacy tool record), and identifier (slug), and it distinguishes from sibling getter tools like dp_get_glossary_term and dp_get_guide by specifying it is for privacy tools.
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 makes the intended use obvious (retrieve a specific tool's record by slug) and implies this is the tool to use when you need that exact data. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would have made the guidance stronger.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.