get_common_argumentOne claim by id: the answer, the texts, the group-page anchor, and the article URL or Article coming. [no key]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| url | Yes | ||
| claim | Yes | ||
| texts | No | ||
| answer | Yes | ||
| article | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "answer": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "article": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "claim": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "texts": {
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "claim",
+ "answer",
+ "url"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added behavioral detail is the cryptic '[no key]' auth note. Because an output schema exists, enumerating returned fields adds little; nothing about not-found behavior or rate limits is disclosed.
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 short sentence that front-loads the purpose, which is good. However, the phrasing is garbled ('the article URL or Article coming') and the bracketed '[no key]' is cryptic, so brevity comes at the cost of clarity.
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 an output schema present the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover safety. What remains missing is how to obtain a valid id, its expected format, and behavior when the id is not found — gaps for a lookup tool with a single undocumented parameter.
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?
There is one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. 'by id' clarifies that the string is a claim identifier, but no format, source, or lookup guidance is given, and the schema only supplies length bounds.
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 a specific retrieval: one claim (common argument) fetched by id, plus what it returns. The singular 'One claim by id' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_common_arguments, though that sibling is never named. The odd trailing clause 'the article URL or Article coming' muddies the resource description slightly.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The only hint is 'by id', which implies a prior lookup (e.g. via list_common_arguments or search) is needed to obtain the id, but this is left entirely 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.