get_technologyRetrieves details for a technology in the Technology Tree—what it is, where it sits on the map, and who works with it—using its technology ID.
A technology from the Technology Tree: what it is, where it sits on the map, and who works with it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| technologyId | Yes | The technology id, for example "nodejs" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the response contains (definition, tree position, people), which matters since no output schema exists, but says nothing about lookup-miss behavior or the nature of the 'map' relationship.
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?
One sentence with no redundancy, and the resource is front-loaded. The phrasing ('where it sits on the map') is slightly figurative for a tool definition, which costs a point but is not wasteful.
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 one-parameter read tool with full annotations, the essentials are present and the return content is sketched since there is no output schema. Missing are error/not-found behavior and any hint about the size or shape of the 'who works with it' portion.
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 coverage is 100% with a single documented parameter, including the example "nodejs", so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about the id format or whether it is a slug, node key, or display name.
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 names a specific resource (a single technology from the Technology Tree) and enumerates the content it carries: identity, map position, and associated people. However it is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, and it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling search_tree, so an agent must infer this is the single-record lookup.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus search_tree or get_catalog, and no precondition is stated beyond the implicit need for a known technologyId. The agent is left to infer that this is a by-id fetch because of the single required parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.