Fetch complete details for a specific PC build by ID: full component list, prices, compatibility checks, and estimated power consumption.
Detalhes de uma build específica: lista completa de componentes, preços, compatibilidade e consumo estimado
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| build_id | Yes | ID da build (ex: 'oI7mI7', extraído da URL /build/{id}) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns but does not state that the operation is read-only, nor mention authentication or rate limits. The description lacks essential safety cues.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and lists key information included in the output. No wasted words.
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?
Considering no output schema, the description adequately explains the return content (components, prices, compatibility, consumption). It misses some details like format or optional filtering, but for a simple retrieval tool it is reasonably complete.
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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes the parameter effectively. The tool description does not add information about the parameter beyond what is in the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states it provides details of a specific build, listing components, prices, compatibility, and estimated consumption. This is distinct from sibling tools like list_community_builds (multiple builds) and get_component_details (single component).
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not indicate that this is for a single build or exclude cases where other tools are more appropriate (e.g., searching builds vs. retrieving one).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.