Retrieve full details for a single Smart India Hackathon 2026 problem statement by PS number or numeric ID, enabling targeted review without searching.
Full details for one problem statement by PS number (e.g. 'SIH26265') or numeric id ('26265').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ps_number | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Full details' hints at a rich payload, but there is no disclosure of error/not-found behavior, permissions, or response shape. The identifier-format examples are the only real behavioral added 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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the key input formats. No 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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema or annotations, the description is mostly sufficient: it explains the identifier and implies a detailed return. It still omits what happens on invalid/missing IDs and any hint about the returned fields, which matters more because no output schema exists.
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% and the single parameter is just typed as a string with no description. The description compensates well by specifying that ps_number accepts either a PS number like 'SIH26265' or a numeric id like '26265', which is meaningful syntax guidance the schema lacks.
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 ('Full details') and resource ('one problem statement') and identifies the lookup key, so an agent can tell it retrieves a single record rather than listing. It doesn't explicitly name search_problem_statements as the alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 description implies usage by giving identifier formats and saying 'one problem statement', which suggests it's for when the PS number is already known. It never states when to use this versus search_problem_statements or what to do if the number is unknown, leaving that to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.