micah_boswell_poemFetch one poem live from https://conscious-shell.com/poems/ and return its title and full text (from the page's CreativeWork JSON-LD). Slugs come from micah_boswell_writing, for example "dreams", "nova", "simpler-in-lima". Errors clearly when the slug does not exist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Poem slug, the last path segment of the poem URL, e.g. "dreams" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent safety, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds valuable behavioral detail: the fetch is live, data is extracted from CreativeWork JSON-LD, and nonexistent slugs produce clear errors.
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?
Two sentences cover the operation, URL pattern, return shape, data source, slug provenance, examples, and error behavior with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
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 fetch with no output schema, this describes exactly what to call, where to get the input, what the response contains, and what happens on failure. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 documents the slug parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that valid slugs come from micah_boswell_writing and providing concrete examples like 'dreams', 'nova', and 'simpler-in-lima'.
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 names the exact resource (a single poem at a specific URL), the verb (Fetch), and the return payload (title and full text). It also distinguishes itself from micah_boswell_writing by explaining that slugs originate from that sibling tool, leaving no ambiguity.
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 clearly implies the intended workflow: get a slug from micah_boswell_writing, then use this tool to fetch that poem's full text, with concrete examples. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like search_micah_boswell, so it stops short of a 5.
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.