get_apple_technologyFetch a compact overview and local source references for any Apple technology, with an option to expand to the full guide and API map when needed.
Get a compact technology overview and local source routes by default. Use view full only when the entire guide and API topic map are required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| view | No | overview |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that the default response is a compact overview with local source routes, and that full mode returns the entire guide and API topic map. No contradiction with annotations.
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 short sentences with no filler. The default behavior is front-loaded, and the conditional guidance for full view is stated directly. Every sentence 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 simple read-only tool, the description covers the major output modes and safety profile via annotations. However, with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the required id is left unexplained, and phrases like 'local source routes' remain ambiguous enough that an agent may not know exactly what to expect or provide.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides some meaning for the view parameter by contrasting overview with full, but the required id parameter is completely undocumented in both the schema and description. An agent does not know what id values are valid or how to obtain them (e.g., from search_apple_technologies).
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 verb and resource: get a compact technology overview and local source routes from an Apple technology guide. It is clear and adds the default-vs-full distinction, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the closely related search_apple_technologies sibling.
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 useful conditional guidance: 'Use view full only when the entire guide and API topic map are required.' However, it does not say when to choose this tool over search_apple_technologies, get_apple_updates, or local reference tools, leaving the tool-selection context implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.