Retrieve details for a specific R package development best practice by ID to guide coding, testing, documentation, and release workflows.
Get details about a specific best practice
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Practice ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't state whether the practice could be missing (error behavior), whether the ID format matters, or what fields are returned. For a read tool with no annotations, this is thin.
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 short sentence, front-loaded and free of filler. Appropriately sized for a single-parameter lookup.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, and no return-value explanation. An agent cannot tell what 'details' includes, how to handle a missing ID, or how it relates to list_practices. The description is underspecified for correct invocation.
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% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'Practice ID' in the schema. The description adds no format or source hints beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (get) and resource (best practice) with detail scoping ('details about a specific'). However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like list_practices, which a reader must infer from the singular 'specific best practice' phrasing alone.
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 on when to use this versus list_practices, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The singular/plural distinction is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.