Fetch a full project card by korter slug: attributes, latest price per currency, coordinates, and price history summary. Check staleness_days for outdated prices.
Full card for one project by korter slug: attributes, latest price per currency, coordinates, history summary. Check staleness_days — korter itself displays months-old prices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | korter slug, e.g. 'tsavkisi-park-tbilisi' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely non-obvious behavioral quirk: korter itself may display months-old prices, so the agent should inspect staleness_days. It doesn't cover auth/permission needs or read-only nature explicitly, but the freshness warning is real value beyond structured data.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the return contents and ending with the operational caveat. Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating returned fields (attributes, prices per currency, coordinates, history summary) and flagging the staleness signal. It is nearly complete for a single-record read tool; only auth/error behavior is unaddressed.
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?
Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already documents the slug with a concrete example. The description reinforces that slug is a 'korter slug', adding no syntax or format detail 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+resource ('full card for one project by korter slug') and enumerates exactly what the card contains: attributes, latest price per currency, coordinates, history summary. This cleanly separates it from sibling list/search tools like search_projects and price_history.
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 'by korter slug' — you fetch one known project — and the staleness_days pointer hints at a freshness-checking use case. However, it never names an alternative (e.g., search_projects to obtain a slug, or price_history for deeper trend work) or states when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.