Retrieve full catalog details for a FEMM API command: arguments, return value, integer code tables, read-only flag, notes, and manual documentation location.
Full catalog entry of one command: args (name, type, optional, description), return value, integer code tables (enums), read_only flag, notes (e.g. pyFEMM-only helpers the engine does not define), and where it is documented in the manual.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does describe the output contents thoroughly (args, return value, enums, notes, manual location), which is helpful transparency about what the tool returns. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or that the operation is read-only, leaving some behavioral gaps.
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 that immediately states the tool's purpose, followed by a compact enumeration of returned fields. Every clause contributes information, and there is no filler or redundancy.
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?
With no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return structure, which is valuable. However, with no annotations and 0% input schema coverage, the definition leaves important invocation and selection details unclear, especially how to specify a command name and when to use this tool instead of related lookup tools.
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 sole required parameter 'name' is undocumented in the schema. The description only says 'of one command', which hints that 'name' refers to a command identifier but does not explain expected format, case sensitivity, or examples. This is insufficient compensation for the complete lack of schema-level parameter descriptions.
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 verb and resource: it retrieves the full catalog entry for one command. It enumerates the returned fields in detail, so the agent knows exactly what kind of information this tool provides. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like femm_api_search or femm_manual_section, which prevents a top score.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives. The description implies that it is used for looking up a specific command's full entry, but it never states when to choose this over femm_api_search or femm_manual_section, leaving usage to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.