Returns public metadata for one Metaculus question, including option labels, option history, scaling metadata, resolution fields, and timing fields when present.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Metaculus question or post id. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds minor context by saying the metadata is 'public' and that some fields appear 'when present,' which signals optional field availability. However, it does not add deeper behavioral details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior.
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 front-loaded sentence that immediately states the return type and then enumerates the included fields. It is efficient with no filler, though the long field list makes it slightly dense rather than elegantly structured.
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 tool is simple: one required id parameter and an existing output schema. The description sufficiently explains what the tool returns, and since an output schema exists, it need not detail the return structure. It is complete for selection and invocation, with the only gap being sibling differentiation.
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 100%, and the single parameter 'id' is fully documented in the schema as a 'Metaculus question or post id.' The description does not mention the parameter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.
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: 'Returns public metadata for one Metaculus question,' and lists the categories of metadata included (option labels, history, scaling, resolution, timing). This is clear and specific, but it does not distinguish the tool from close siblings such as metaculus_question or metaculus_question_options, so it falls short of a 5.
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 states what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention metaculus_question, metaculus_question_options, or any other sibling, nor does it describe prerequisites or exclusion conditions.
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.
