Retrieve a component by exact name to get its verified repository or an honest private/unknown marker. Private components return public=False; unknown names get a typed refusal.
Get one component by exact name, with its verified repo or an honest private marker.
Unknown names are returned as a typed unknown_component refusal. Private components return public=False with no repo/description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well: it explicitly describes the unknown-name refusal behavior and the private-component response shape (public=False with no repo/description). It does not mention auth, rate limits, or other side effects, but for a simple read-style tool the disclosed behaviors are the most important ones.
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 three short sentences, each earning its place: what the tool returns, what happens for unknown names, and what happens for private components. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains 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?
Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description reasonably covers the main scenarios an agent would encounter: successful public lookup, unknown name refusal, and private component marker. It does not fully specify the public success response structure, but it gives enough behavioral detail for correct invocation and interpretation.
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 schema only provides the parameter name 'name' with no description, so the tool description must compensate. It adds semantic value by specifying 'exact name,' which is a meaningful constraint beyond the bare schema. It does not mention case sensitivity or formatting, but for a single simple parameter this is adequate.
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 the operation ('Get one component by exact name') and distinguishes it from the sibling search/list tools by emphasizing exact-name lookup. It also signals the key result shape—verified repo or private marker—so an agent understands what the tool is for.
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 'by exact name' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when the agent has a specific known component name rather than needing to search or list. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the contrast with siblings like find_components and search_components is strongly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.