Retrieve expanded port coordinates, electrical capabilities, and modular carrier slot layouts for a hardware catalog slug to plan rack layouts and validate device fit.
Retrieve expanded port coordinates, electrical capabilities, and modular carrier slot layouts for a specific hardware slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Exact hardware catalog blueprint slug to retrieve. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe retrieval operation, and the description adds useful scope by naming the returned data categories. However, it does not mention error behavior for an unknown slug, rate limits, or other operational context, so the additional behavioral detail is modest.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler text. It communicates the action, target, and returned data efficiently.
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 tool with one fully described parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. Because there is no output schema, it helpfully lists the returned data categories, though it does not describe the exact return structure or error cases.
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?
The sole parameter is fully documented in the schema as an exact hardware catalog blueprint slug, giving a baseline of 3. The description's 'specific hardware slug' reinforces but does not add meaning beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('device blueprint') and enumerates the data returned, making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as search_catalog or define_custom_blueprint, 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?
The phrase 'for a specific hardware slug' implies the tool is used when an exact catalog slug is already known, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives such as using search_catalog first. Usage is therefore only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.