Questions and answers related to a given Pinnacle Ask entry — the interlinked query graph around one id. id accepts a slug, /ask path, or full URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Anchor entry — slug, /ask path, or full URL. | |
| limit | No | Max items (1–25, default 8). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Sanitised jsonb projection from the locked ask_* RPC layer. | |
| tool | Yes | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| disclaimer | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the accepted formats for 'id' (slug, /ask path, full URL) but does not disclose other behaviors like error handling or pagination.
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?
Single, well-structured sentence. Front-loaded with purpose, then parameter details. No unnecessary 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 presence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description adequately covers the core value. Minor gap: 'interlinked query graph' could be briefly elaborated, but overall sufficient.
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%. The description repeats the schema's 'id' format information but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves related questions and answers for a given Pinnacle Ask entry, specifically the interlinked query graph. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search' (general) and 'topic' (broader) by focusing on a single ID's graph.
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?
Usage is implied but not explicitly contrasted with sibling tools. No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided; the agent must infer from the description alone.
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 clearly distinct purpose: browse discovers taxonomy values, topic retrieves content for a value, compare does side-by-side analysis, fetch gets full answers, etc. No two tools overlap in functionality, and descriptions make their unique roles evident.
All tool names are lowercase, using underscores for compound names (lookup_code, red_flags) while others are single words. This pattern is consistent and predictable, with no mixing of conventions like camelCase.
With 11 tools covering search, retrieval, browsing, comparison, milestones, pathways, red flags, clinical code lookup, and a home overview, the count is well-scoped for a knowledge corpus. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy.
The tool surface covers the full user journey: orienting (home), discovering (browse), searching (search), retrieving (fetch), comparing (compare), exploring (topic, milestones, pathway, red_flags, related), and code-based lookup (lookup_code). No critical missing operations.
