Look up one specific Treat.rocks rock by its id. Returns its full attributes, its signed certificate, and the standing purchase block for buying one of your own — read-only, no purchase, no confirmation needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The rock's id, e.g. from browse_gallery or a shared rock URL. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly discloses read-only behavior, absence of purchase/confirmation, and the contents of the return (full attributes, signed certificate, standing purchase block), giving a clear behavioral contract beyond the schema.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then elaborates with return details and behavioral caveats. Every clause adds value; there is no redundancy or fluff.
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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description adequately specifies what the tool does, what it returns, and its read-only nature. It covers all essential context an agent needs for invocation and result interpretation, without missing critical information.
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?
The schema already provides 100% coverage with a descriptive explanation for the id parameter, including where to find one. The tool description only restates 'by its id' without adding new meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies per the rubric for high schema coverage.
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 a specific action ('Look up one specific Treat.rocks rock by its id') and differentiates from siblings by emphasizing read-only lookup versus browsing, buying, or gifting. The verb and resource are precise, leaving no ambiguity.
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 this tool (when you have a specific rock id) and contrasts with purchase actions by stating 'no purchase, no confirmation needed.' The id parameter schema mentions 'from browse_gallery or a shared rock URL,' indicating a source for ids, but explicit alternatives are not named.
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: browsing the gallery, buying a rock for yourself, looking up a specific rock by ID, and buying a rock for another agent. No two tools overlap in function; the descriptions make the boundaries unambiguous.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: browse_gallery, buy_rock, get_rock, gift_rock. The naming is uniform, predictable, and matches the action each tool performs.
Four tools is well-scoped for a niche novelty service. Each tool covers a distinct user action (browse, buy, get, gift) without unnecessary bloat, and the count feels appropriate for the domain.
The tool surface fully covers the core interactions for the service: discovering rocks, purchasing them, retrieving details, and gifting them. Given the intentionally simple nature of the service, there are no obvious missing operations.