get_combosRetrieves the combo that matches an exact symbol, enabling users to identify a specific combo by its precise identifier.
Returns the combo matching the exact symbol.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Query parameters and pagination; use the exact field names shown. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only exact-match lookup behavior and says nothing about missing-symbol errors, response shape, or pagination. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, this is adequate but 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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.
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-only lookup, the definition plus annotations and schema are enough to call the tool. It lacks return-value detail, but no output schema exists and the operation is straightforward; the remaining gap is minor.
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 there is only one required nested parameter, so the schema already documents the query.symbol structure. The description adds useful semantics by saying the match must be exact rather than fuzzy, which is not explicit in the schema. It does not explain the nested query wrapper, but that is visible in the schema.
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 ('Returns') and resource ('combo'), and the 'exact symbol' qualifier signals a precise lookup. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from other get_* siblings, and the plural tool name versus singular 'the combo' introduces minor ambiguity.
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?
It implies the tool is for exact-symbol lookups but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives such as create_combo or other retrieval tools. An agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.