Retrieve the full text of a creative-direction principle by ID, including its rule, limits, tensions, evidence support, and underlying claim IDs for traceable guidance.
Full text of one principle (e.g. 'P08'): the rule, its limits, what it guards against, known tensions, evidence support and the claim IDs behind it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| principle_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable content-shape context: what the returned text contains (rule, limits, guards against, tensions, evidence support, claim IDs). It doesn't discuss behavior like auth, rate limits, or behavior on unknown IDs, but the content disclosure is a genuine addition.
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 front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical example, no waste. The list of returned fields is dense but earns its place by signaling the response's richness. Slightly heavy for a one-liner, but structure is clear.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it gets back and how to identify the item. Annotations cover the safety profile. The main gap is guidance on how to obtain a valid principle_id, which the agent must infer from siblings.
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 0% and the single parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by implying the format ('e.g. P08'), telling the agent what an identifier looks like. It stops short of stating the full accepted format or error behavior for invalid IDs, so not a 5.
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?
Specific verb ('Full text of one principle') plus resource and an example identifier ('P08'). It makes clear this is a single-item retrieval distinct from siblings like get_framework (whole framework), list_tensions, or search_evidence.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to guidance. The example 'P08' hints at the ID format but never states that a principle ID must be known beforehand or that search/framework should be used first to discover IDs. Context is implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.