get_frameworkRetrieve a specific analytical framework's details and complete Markdown text by name. Use it to review or reuse frameworks stored in a private knowledge base.
Return one framework's details and its full Markdown text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Framework name as shown by list_frameworks. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered structurally. The description usefully discloses that the response includes full Markdown text (not just metadata), but says nothing about not-found behavior or size of the payload.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and the notable payload detail. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.
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?
With an output schema present, the description need not explain return fields, and it correctly flags the Markdown body as part of the result. It is nearly complete, missing only a hint about how names are matched or what happens on an unknown name.
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 description coverage is 100% and there is a single parameter, so the schema already documents that 'name' is the framework name from list_frameworks. The description adds no format or matching semantics beyond that, so the 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 and resource ('Return one framework's details and its full Markdown text'), clearly a single-item fetch rather than a list. It does not explicitly name list_frameworks as the sibling it contrasts with, so the reader must infer the single-vs-many distinction from the word 'one'.
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 by 'one framework's details', and the schema's name field points at list_frameworks as the way to discover names, but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Adequate but minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.