Get the full evidence analysis for one supplement by slug: per-claim evidence grades, studied dose, safety, PubMed references, purchase link (buyUrl), and the citable pageUrl (with a Portuguese version under "pt").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Supplement slug, e.g. "creatine" (find it via search_supplements) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently lists the output contents but does not mention side effects, error conditions, or confirm that the operation is read-only. Since 'Get' implies read-only, it is partially transparent but omits failure modes.
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 sentence that packs all essential information without unnecessary detail. It lists the response contents in a compact, readable manner, and the structure is efficient.
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?
The description is fairly complete given that there is no output schema; it names all the returned elements. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool relative to siblings, but the slug-based nature and the hint about search_supplements provide enough context for most use cases.
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 for the single parameter 'slug' includes a clear description and an example. The tool description reinforces this by repeating 'by slug' and referencing search_supplements. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds marginal value beyond the schema, but the existing schema description is sufficient.
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 'supplement', and enumerates the exact contents of the response (evidence grades, dose, safety, references, purchase link, pageUrl). It is specific and distinguishes it from listing or searching tools by focusing on a single slug's full analysis.
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?
It implies that one should first use search_supplements to find a slug, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_guide or list_guides. The description gives a hint but leaves the decision to inference.
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.
