掲載欄1件の詳細（提供元・認証・権限・接続の難しさ・料金・注意点・安全面・リンク）を slug で取る。
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"slug": "<slug>"
},
"name": "get_mcp"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | search_mcp の結果の slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned content fields, which partially compensates and implies a read-only lookup, but it says nothing about error behavior, missing-slug handling, or rate/permission constraints for what is presumably a safe read.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and resource. The field enumeration is somewhat list-like but every item conveys useful scope information for a get tool with no output schema.
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 low-complexity, single-parameter lookup with no output schema, enumerating the return fields gives the agent adequate expectations. Nothing critical for calling it correctly is missing, though an explicit read-only statement would complete it.
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 slug parameter is already documented there as coming from search_mcp results. The description only restates 'by slug' and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 verb (取る/get) and resource (1件の詳細/one listing's detail) and enumerates the concrete fields returned (提供元・認証・権限・接続の難しさ・料金・注意点・安全面・リンク). The get-vs-search split from search_mcp is inferable from the slug-based single-item framing, though the sibling is not named explicitly.
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?
Invocation is strongly implied: pass a slug to retrieve one listing's detail. The schema note ties the slug to search_mcp results, reinforcing the search-then-get flow. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus alternatives or any preconditions.
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.