get_toolLook up one AI agent infrastructure tool by slug or name to get its summary, official site, open-source status, last link check, and alternatives in its category.
Get the full listing for one tool by slug or name: summary, official site, open-source flag, last link check, and the alternatives in its category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | Yes | Tool slug or name, e.g. 'e2b' or 'Browserbase' |
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=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value by listing the returned fields (summary, official site, open-source flag, last link check, alternatives), which helps the agent decide whether to call it. It does not cover error behavior or auth.
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 front-loaded sentence that states the verb, scope, and return payload with no filler. Every clause earns its place by clarifying what 'full listing' contains.
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 read-only getter with rich annotations and a fully described parameter, the description is largely complete. It enumerates the returned fields in lieu of an output schema, though it omits not-found behavior and slug/name disambiguation, which keeps it from a 5.
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%, so the single 'tool' parameter is fully documented in the schema with examples. The description repeats 'by slug or name' without adding format, case-sensitivity, or preference details beyond the schema. 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 (Get) and resource (one tool) and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but 'one tool by slug or name' implicitly contrasts with search_tools, compare, and list_categories.
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?
Provides implied usage: call when you have a specific tool identifier and need its full details. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives named, so the agent must infer the routing from the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.