get_frankspace_skillFetch the FrankSpace Agent Skill: how to query the listing inventory correctly, how to read the data (prices are pence, IDs are UUIDs), the commercial facts, and the limits of what this server can do. Read this once before your first search if you are unfamiliar with FrankSpace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_hint | No | Name of the calling agent (e.g. 'claude', 'chatgpt') for analytics. |
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?
Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and closed-world. The description adds valuable context about the content of the skill (e.g., data format, limitations), which helps the agent understand what to expect without contradicting annotations.
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?
Two sentences that front-load the action ('Fetch the FrankSpace Agent Skill') and succinctly cover the document's content and recommended usage. Every sentence adds value.
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 tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema). The description explains the skill's content sufficiently for an agent to understand when and why to call it. Minor omission: no mention of the parameter's effect, but the tool works without it.
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 100% description coverage for the single optional parameter 'client_hint,' so baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on this parameter, but it is not necessary for understanding the tool's core purpose.
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 explicitly states it fetches the 'FrankSpace Agent Skill' document, which instructs on querying inventory, reading data (prices as pence, IDs as UUIDs), and understanding server limits. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'ai_search' or 'get_workspace.'
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 advises reading the skill 'once before your first search if you are unfamiliar with FrankSpace,' providing a clear use case. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.