Generate the HTML link tags and CSS font-family declaration needed to embed a Google Font on a web page. Select the family and weights to get the copy-paste code.
Get the HTML link tags and CSS font-family declaration to use a Google Font on a web page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| family | Yes | Family name, case-insensitive (e.g. "Open Sans") | |
| weights | No | Upright weights to load, e.g. [400, 700] |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'HTML link tags and CSS font-family declaration' which gives some behavioral insight into what the tool produces. However, it doesn't mention any side effects (likely none), performance characteristics, or error conditions, but for a seemingly read-only operation, this is adequate. No contradiction with annotations since none exist.
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?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It doesn't waste words, and it front-loads the key action ('Get the HTML link tags and CSS font-family declaration'). It could be slightly more detailed, but it's concise and well-structured.
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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It tells the agent what it returns and for what purpose. However, without annotations, it lacks explicit guidance on error handling, network dependencies, or whether the tool works offline, but those are minor gaps. The description is adequate for an agent to call 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (family and weights). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond that; it implies the parameters are used to generate the embed code but doesn't add syntax or format details 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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: it returns HTML link tags and CSS font-family declarations for using a Google Font. It specifies the resource (Google Font) and the output type (HTML/CSS), which distinguishes it from siblings like search_fonts and get_font_details. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from preview_text, though the purpose is clear enough.
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 the usage scenario (when you need embed code for a font) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It doesn't provide exclusions or alternatives. The context is clear but not explicit, so it gets a 3.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.