get_guideA whole guide (e.g. "London Greasy Spoon Guide"), in the curator’s order with their ranks and quotes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guide | Yes | Guide id or title (from list_creators) | |
| limit | No | How many entries (default 50) | |
| creator | Yes | Curator id, handle or name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / creator / descriptionPrevious value: -"Contributor id, handle or name"New value: +"Curator id, handle or name"Input schema / properties / creator / descriptionPrevious value: -"Creator id, handle or name"New value: +"Contributor id, handle or name"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful output context: the guide is returned in the curator's order with their ranks and quotes, which is beyond what annotations or schema disclose.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the resource and its distinguishing content 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?
With no output schema, the description usefully conveys what the returned guide contains (order, ranks, quotes). It does not mention pagination or the creator/guide lookup relationship, but those are covered by the schema and annotations.
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%, so all parameters (creator, guide, limit) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 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?
The description states the specific resource (a whole guide) and its content (curator's order, ranks, quotes), which distinguishes it from get_place and search_places. It lacks an explicit verb and does not name sibling alternatives, but the resource scope is clear.
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 phrase 'A whole guide' implies you use this when you want the complete ordered guide rather than a search or single place, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g. 'use search_places for queries').
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.