Retrieve public project evidence for a site project page by name or slug, returning structured answers with source URLs to verify claims against live content.
Return public project evidence for a site project page (default: kilodock).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name_or_slug | No | kilodock |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the safety/behavior burden. 'Public' and 'Return' imply an auth-free, read-only operation, which is useful, but nothing is disclosed about errors, edge cases, or any other behavioral traits beyond that minimal implication.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant clauses. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
Even with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is incomplete for confident selection: it leaves 'project evidence' undefined and gives no usage guidance relative to sibling tools. It is enough for a trivial default invocation but not for understanding the tool's real role.
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%, and the description only repeats the default value 'kilodock' without explaining how name_or_slug is matched or what happens when it is omitted. The parameter is simple, but the description does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema field title.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource ('public project evidence for a site project page') with a default value. However, 'project evidence' is somewhat opaque and the description does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like get_page or search_site.
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?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus list_site_pages, get_page, or search_site. The phrase 'for a site project page' only weakly implies a context, with no exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.