Tool profile by id. Default: summary, best_for, price, free, 2 strengths, 2 weaknesses, url. fields: summary description best_for not_for skill coding pricing platforms strengths weaknesses alternatives video compare official all.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| fields | No | ||
| verbose | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / fieldsAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Input schema / properties / id / descriptionRemoved value: -"Tool id, e.g. 'cursor'"Input schema / properties / verboseAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a read-only operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that a default set of fields is returned and that fields/verbose parameters can alter the output, but it does not explain behavior such as what happens if an id is not found or whether results are cached.
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 run-on sentence with a dense list of field names, which is hard to parse. It front-loads the default behavior but then strings together many tokens without structure.
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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should clarify id format, verbose behavior, and how fields interacts with the default set. It only partially addresses fields and omits the other parameters, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke the tool confidently.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It lists possible fields values and implies the fields array, but it does not explain the id format, the purpose of verbose, or the interaction between fields and verbose. This leaves significant ambiguity.
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 says 'Tool profile by id', which identifies the resource (a tool profile) and the retrieval mechanism, but the verb is implicit and the phrasing is terse. It distinguishes itself somewhat from siblings like compare_tools and list_alternatives, but the purpose is not stated with a clear verb.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as search, compare_tools, or list_alternatives. The description lists fields but does not say in what scenarios the tool should be called or what its results are best for.
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.