find_techniqueDirect lookup by technique id or name, for when you already know what you want. To match by symptom, use classify_intent instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Technique id (kebab-case) or name, exact or approximate |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only lookup but does not specify behavior on missing entries, rate limits, or other traits. Adequate but minimal.
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 two sentences: first states the action and condition, second gives alternative. Extremely concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words.
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?
Given the simple lookup nature with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, when to use, and parameter expectations. Could mention return format but not essential.
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%, but the description adds meaning by specifying the format (kebab-case) and matching behavior (exact or approximate), which goes beyond the schema's description.
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 title and description clearly state it is a direct lookup by technique id or name. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying when to use classify_intent instead.
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 explicitly states 'for when you already know what you want' and directs to classify_intent for symptom matching, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: listing categories, classifying intent, finding/getting technique details, and applying a technique. There is no overlap, and descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., apply_technique, list_categories). The naming is uniform and predictable.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its focus on technique selection and application. Each tool serves a necessary step in the workflow without unnecessary bloat.
The tool surface covers the full workflow: browsing categories, classifying intent, retrieving technique details, and applying techniques. There are no obvious gaps for an agent using this server.