Full detail for one track by slug: address, coordinates, hours, amenities, operating status, upcoming events, and the track's published pricing where it has any. Pricing is the field most worth reading here; roughly half of listed tracks publish their rates and few other sources carry them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Track slug, from search_tracks |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the name by enumerating the returned fields and noting that pricing is conditional ('where it has any'), which is useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it does not cover potential error behavior, output shape, or security requirements, leaving some gaps.
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 with no filler: the first states the tool's purpose and full field list, the second adds a valuable, actionable note about pricing. Every word earns its place and the key purpose is front-loaded.
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?
The description adequately compensates for the absent output schema by listing all expected data fields, including the conditional pricing. It could add error behavior or a pointer to search_tracks for obtaining slugs, but the schema already covers slug provenance.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes 'slug' as 'Track slug, from search_tracks'. The description only restates 'by slug' and adds no new parameter details, so it does not meaningfully exceed the schema.
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 a specific verb and resource: get full detail for one track by slug. It lists the exact data fields returned and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling search/list tools by being the single-track detail endpoint.
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 states the use case: retrieve full detail for one track when you have a slug. The pricing note adds a concrete reason to prefer this tool, though it does not explicitly name when to use alternatives like search_tracks or find_tracks_near.
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.