Haal het volledige publieke profiel van een marketingbureau op aan de hand van zijn slug. Geeft 404 als de slug niet bestaat of het bureau niet bereikt wil worden via MCP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema: the tool returns a 404 both when the slug does not exist and when the agency has opted out of MCP reachability. This is a meaningful non-standard behavior for an agent to know. It could go further by describing the response format, but for a simple read operation this is solid.
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 compact and effective: one sentence states the main action, the second gives the key error condition. Both sentences earn their place, and the primary 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?
For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential decision factors: what it does, what identifies the target, and when it errors. It does not describe the response structure, but 'volledige publieke profiel' sufficiently signals the returned content type for an agent to call it correctly.
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 compensate. It does clarify that slug is the identifier used to look up the profile, which adds some semantic value beyond the raw string schema. However, it does not describe slug format, casing, or URL relevance, so the compensation is only partial.
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 states a specific verb ('Haal ... op' - retrieve) and resource ('volledige publieke profiel van een marketingbureau') keyed by its slug. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling find/search tools, which are for discovery rather than retrieval of a full profile by exact identifier.
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 implies when to use the tool: when you already have an agency's slug and need its full public profile. However, it does not explicitly contrast with find_agency or search_agencies, nor state when not to use it, so the routing guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
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.
find_agency is explicitly an exact-name/domain lookup that returns a slug, while search_agencies is clearly a criteria-based ranked discovery. get_agency_profile and submit_rfq occupy completely distinct roles, and the descriptions cross-reference each other to remove any ambiguity.
All four tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: find_agency, get_agency_profile, search_agencies, submit_rfq. The verb clearly describes the action and the noun clearly identifies the target resource.
Four tools form a tight, purposeful set for the agency discovery and RFQ submission workflow. There is no redundancy, and each tool earns its place in the server's scope.
The core user journey is covered: find an agency, view its profile, search by criteria, and submit an RFQ. Minor gaps are the lack of RFQ status tracking after submission and no pagination beyond the 20 search results, but these are workable within the stated scope.