Get detailed house project information including specifications, price, features, and company contacts.
Args: project_id: Project UUID from search_projects results
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the content of the response but does not mention read-only nature, error behavior, or any side effects. Since 'Get' implies a read operation, this is minimally adequate but lacks detailed behavioral context.
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 concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words. The two-line format (description plus Args) efficiently conveys the purpose and parameter semantics.
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 (single parameter) and the presence of an output schema to document return values, the description covers the essential usage context. It explains what the tool returns and where the ID comes from, but lacks explicit statements about behavior in edge cases (e.g., missing project). Still, it is sufficiently complete for its purpose.
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 has 0% description coverage for the only parameter, but the description compensates by explaining that project_id is a 'Project UUID from search_projects results,' which provides meaningful guidance on obtaining the value. This adds value beyond the bare schema definition.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed house project information,' listing the content types (specifications, price, features, company contacts). It distinguishes from siblings like search_projects by indicating this retrieves full details for a single project using a UUID from search results. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.
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 provides clear context: the project_id is a 'Project UUID from search_projects results,' implying this tool is used after searching for projects to fetch full details. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of the explicit guidance required for a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.