Retrieve full details for one Awwwards element by slug: title, author, built-with stack, media URLs, related elements, and parent award-winning project.
Get one Awwwards element in full: title, author, built-with stack, media URLs, related elements and the parent award-winning project. Use search_elements first for ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Element slug from search_elements |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the shape of the returned content (related elements, parent project), which is otherwise unknown since there is no output schema. Error behavior and any lookup limits are not mentioned.
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 tight sentences with zero filler; the payload enumeration comes first and the prerequisite is placed last as an actionable instruction. Every clause earns its place.
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?
For a single-param getter with no output schema, the description supplies the return-field inventory and the id-acquisition path, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits failure behavior for unknown slugs, a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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?
Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% ('Element slug from search_elements'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description reinforces the id's origin but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Specific verb (get) plus resource (one Awwwards element) with an explicit enumeration of the returned payload: title, author, built-with stack, media URLs, related elements, and parent project. It separates itself from the sibling search_elements by being the single-item 'full detail' endpoint.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent to search_elements first to obtain ids, which is the correct prerequisite for this tool. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or what happens with an invalid/unknown slug, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.