Retrieve a resource card and its typed inbound and outbound relationships using a slug, providing complete context for project tracking.
One resource card plus its inbound and outbound typed relationships.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits but only states what is returned. It does not mention read-only nature, authorization needs, or error handling (e.g., if slug is invalid).
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 sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the key content. However, its brevity sacrifices completeness, but it remains efficient.
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?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too sparse to fully inform the agent. It does not cover return format, parameter semantics, or how to handle common scenarios, especially with many sibling 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?
The input schema has a single required parameter 'slug' with no description, and the tool description does not explain its purpose or format. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fails to add any meaning.
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 specifies that it retrieves one resource card along with its inbound and outbound typed relationships, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like hub_resource_list (list) or hub_get (generic).
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hub_resource_list or hub_get. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.