Read allowlisted component skills, guides, workflows, capabilities, or overviews by catalogue ID so you can inspect exact reference details before running operations.
Read an allowlisted component skill/guide/capabilities, workflow, or overview by catalogue ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | component | |
| name | Yes | ||
| section | No | capabilities |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.22Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral trait beyond that: reads are restricted to an 'allowlisted' catalogue, implying unknown or non-allowlisted IDs will not resolve. It does not say what happens on a missing/unallowlisted ID, but the added restriction is real value.
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 compact sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the verb and resource. It is perhaps too terse for the information it needs to convey, but nothing is wasted.
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 and annotations exist, so return values and safety need not be described. Still, for a three-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, the description omits the section parameter, the defaults, and any routing versus siblings, leaving real gaps an agent must guess around.
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 carries the full burden, and it only partially delivers. It hints at kind values (component, skill/guide, workflow, overview) but never explains the defaults (kind=component, section=capabilities), never mentions the 'section' parameter at all, and labels the required 'name' parameter as 'catalogue ID', a terminology mismatch that could cause wrong arguments.
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 (Read) and enumerates candidate resource types (component skill/guide/capabilities, workflow, overview) from a catalogue. However, the enumeration is muddled and the phrase 'by catalogue ID' does not map cleanly to the required parameter named 'name', so an agent cannot cleanly distinguish this from siblings like danceflow_component, danceflow_get_workflow, or danceflow_capabilities.
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 when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives, despite several plausible siblings (danceflow_search for discovery, danceflow_list_workflows, danceflow_component). The agent must infer that this is a fetch-by-known-ID tool rather than a discovery tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.