get_cluster_briefThe editorial brief for a HerStack cluster: framing, research findings, the evidence table, brand criteria, and a plain-language FAQ that also explains the condition itself (what perimenopause is, its timeline, contraception, when to see a GP). Citation provenance is carried as source labels.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cluster | Yes | Cluster slug to summarise. |
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 the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add useful behavioral context. It does so by detailing what the brief contains and noting that citation provenance is carried as source labels, which informs the agent about the output structure.
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, well-structured sentence front-loads the core definition ('editorial brief') and then lists contents, keeping it compact. The parenthetical about perimenopause is slightly extraneous but still relevant to the FAQ content.
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 only one parameter, high schema coverage, and safety annotations, the description supplies sufficient context about the return value's contents, including citation provenance. It does not specify return formatting or error behavior, but those are not critical for this low-complexity retrieval tool.
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 documents the only parameter 'cluster' fully with a description ('Cluster slug to summarise') and an enum of valid values. The tool description adds no extra semantics for the parameter, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline 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 identifies the resource ('editorial brief for a HerStack cluster') and enumerates its contents: framing, research findings, evidence table, brand criteria, and FAQ. It is distinct from sibling tools like assess_concern and recommend_supplements, which focus on other actions.
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 the tool by listing the brief's contents, so an agent can infer it is for retrieving editorial cluster briefs. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over assess_concern or recommend_supplements, nor give exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.