Fetch a starter Markdown template for planning or research documents, including syntax and a theme based on a one-line header, to generate HTML with light/dark and responsive support.
시작 문서(Markdown)와 문법. kind: plan(기획) | research(리서치). 머리말의 theme 한 줄로 색을 고른다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | plan |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of transparency. It discloses that the starter document uses frontmatter 'theme' to determine colors and that 'kind' selects plan versus research variants. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a safe read-only operation or describe any other behavioral constraints.
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 very short and front-loaded with the core resource, followed by parameter options and a key behavioral detail. Each sentence adds useful information with minimal waste, though the phrasing is terse enough that some meaning requires inference.
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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the main information an agent needs: what the tool returns, the supported kinds, and the theme-to-color behavior. It is not fully complete because it lacks usage context relative to siblings, but the tool's low complexity makes this a minor gap.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so for the only parameter, 'kind', by explaining the two possible values: plan(기획) and research(리서치). This adds meaning not present in the schema, though it omits any nuance about default behavior or how the value affects the returned document.
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 identifies the tool's resource as a starter Markdown document with grammar/syntax, and names the two variants (plan and research). It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieves', but the tool name 'get_starter' combined with the description makes the purpose clear. It is partially distinguished from siblings by describing starter-document content and theme selection.
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 about when to choose get_starter over sibling tools such as list_themes, render_document, or publish_document. The description implies usage by listing the 'kind' parameter values, but it never states concrete selection criteria or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.