get_toolRetrieve detailed software tool info by slug: verified pricing with source and date, and clarify which users it suits and doesn't suit.
Full detail on one tool by slug: what it is, pricing with the vendor source URL and the date it was checked, who it suits, and who it does not. Use search_tools first if you do not know the slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Tool slug, for example 'notion' or 'zendesk'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about what information is returned, including the vendor source URL and checked date, but does not disclose additional side effects or authorization requirements. With annotations covering the safety baseline, a 3 is appropriate.
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 with no filler. The core purpose and returned content are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the routing instruction is placed in the second sentence without redundancy.
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 low complexity of one documented parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is returned, how the single parameter is used, and what to do if the slug is unknown. Minor details such as error behavior for nonexistent slugs are not covered, but they are not essential for invoking the tool correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single required parameter is clearly documented with examples. The description only restates that the tool works 'by slug,' adding no meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 tool as returning full detail for a single tool identified by slug, and lists the specific content it provides (what it is, pricing, source URL, checked date, fit). It distinguishes itself from search_tools by instructing users to search first if the slug is unknown, but it does not mention get_alternatives, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.
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 gives an explicit routing rule: 'Use search_tools first if you do not know the slug.' This implies get_tool should be used when the slug is already known. However, it does not address when get_alternatives would be the better choice or provide any exclusion criteria for this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.