getRetrieve a full glossary entry by category and slug, including definitions, references, and page links for Earth-Moon space terms.
按分类与 slug 取一条词条的完整定义与参考文献。slug 可写成 分类/slug 形式，例如 orbits/aro。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | 词条 slug，例如 aro 或 orbits/aro | |
| category | No | 分类 slug，例如 orbits。slug 已含分类时可省略 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that the response includes the full definition plus references, but says nothing about missing entries, error behavior, or whether the single-slug form short-circuits the category parameter.
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?
Two tight sentences with the retrieval scope front-loaded and the slug format example last; nothing is wasted.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers what is returned (definition + references) and the accepted slug shapes. Only the not-found/error behavior is left implicit.
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 schema already documents both parameters, so baseline would be 3; the description's note that slug may be given as `category/slug` (with an example) clarifies the interaction between the two parameters beyond the schema text.
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 concrete verb+resource: fetch one entry's full definition and references, keyed by category and slug. This distinguishes it from a listing/search operation, though it never names the sibling `search` tool explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied—single-entry retrieval by slug—but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over `search`, nor any note about what happens if the slug is unknown or the category is ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.