Retrieve complete details for one VK API method by operation ID to check scope, safety level, pagination, rate limits, parameters, and docs before calling it.
Return the full catalog record for one endpoint: method, host, path, scope, safety level, pagination style, rate limit, params and doc URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the full catalog record is returned (method, host, path, scope, safety level, pagination, rate limit), but says nothing about whether an unknown operation_id errors or what happens for non-catalog endpoints.
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 dense sentence front-loads the purpose and the returned field list. It is efficient, though the long comma-separated field list is slightly list-heavy.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the field enumeration gives a useful preview. The main gap is guidance on selecting this tool over its siblings and the operation_id's provenance.
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 operation_id parameter is undocumented, so the description could have compensated but does not explain where an operation_id comes from or its format. Baseline 3 for a one-param tool.
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?
Clear verb+resource: 'Return the full catalog record for one endpoint', and the enumerated fields make its scope concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from vk_get_section or vk_search_methods, so it falls short of a 5.
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 being the per-endpoint detail lookup against siblings like vk_list_sections and vk_search_methods, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.