Fetches the full content of a single Web2MD skill by id or name, returning its name, description, and complete SKILL.md body. Use list_skills first to find skill ids.
Fetch the full content of a single Web2MD skill by id (or name). Returns its name, description, and complete SKILL.md body. Use list_skills first to find ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Skill id (or name) to fetch |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden: it makes the read-only nature evident via "Fetch" and, importantly, discloses the return shape (name, description, complete SKILL.md body) in the absence of an output schema. It does not address behavior on a missing or invalid id, which is the main remaining gap.
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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, return contents second, discovery prerequisite last. No redundancy or filler.
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 single-parameter read tool this covers purpose, return contents, and how to obtain valid ids. Only failure-mode behavior (unknown id) is unaddressed, a minor gap given the tool's low complexity.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage that already documents it as "Skill id (or name) to fetch." The description repeats the id-or-name equivalently without adding format, resolution rules (what happens on an ambiguous name), or examples, so the baseline of 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ("Fetch the full content of a single Web2MD skill") plus the exact lookup key (id or name), and explicitly contrasts with list_skills, so an agent can separate it from the discovery sibling without opening the schema.
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?
"Use list_skills first to find ids" gives a clear workflow precondition and names the alternative tool for discovery. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool (e.g. fetching many skills at once), which keeps it from a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.