get_guide_itemData-only detail lookup by exact type and id. Use for Ask AI follow-ups, then provide useful prose with source links. It never renders another search card.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| type | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | Yes | ||
| guide | Yes | ||
| dataPolicy | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / type / enumPrevious value: -[
- "event",
- "session",
- "person",
- "company",
- "food"
-]New value: +[
+ "event",
+ "session",
+ "person",
+ "company",
+ "food",
+ "job"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly and idempotent hints, and the description adds concrete behavioral context: data-only lookup and no search-card rendering. This is useful because some sibling tools may have UI side effects.
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, purposeful sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds a distinct fact: data-only behavior, usage context, and UI behavior.
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 two-parameter lookup with an output schema and safety annotations, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and behavioral constraints. Missing details like return shape are already provided by the output schema.
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%, but the description names both parameters and adds the key 'exact' matching semantics. It does not explain enum values or id format, though the schema's enum and constraints already carry that information.
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?
States a specific action ('lookup'), resource ('guide item'), and exact selection criteria ('exact type and id'). The phrase 'never renders another search card' also distinguishes it from search-type siblings.
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?
Explicitly instructs use for Ask AI follow-ups and provides downstream guidance about producing prose with source links. It implies when not to use it via 'never renders another search card,' though it does not enumerate alternative tools.
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.