get_fixRetrieve the full fix for an MCP error by slug: exact error, cause, numbered steps with code, and sources.
The full fix for one MCP error by slug: the exact error, its cause, numbered steps with code, and sources.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Fix slug from search_fixes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, read-only lookup, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the shape of the returned content (exact error, cause, numbered steps with code, sources), which the agent cannot learn from the annotations.
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 sentence that front-loads the operation and then lists the return contents; every clause earns its place with 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?
With no output schema, the description usefully carries the return-shape burden, which is the key missing structured information. It omits only edge behavior such as what happens when a slug is not found, a minor gap for a simple one-parameter lookup.
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 exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'by slug' restates what the schema already defines as a string with length bounds and the 'from search_fixes' origin note adds nothing new.
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 and resource ('Get ... one MCP error by slug') and enumerates the payload it returns (error, cause, steps, sources). It implicitly contrasts with the plural search_fixes by emphasizing 'one' fix, but never names the sibling outright, so it falls short of full 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?
Usage is only implied: the singular 'one ... by slug' suggests a follow-up lookup after a search, and the schema note 'Fix slug from search_fixes' hints at the workflow, but the description itself states no when-to-use condition or alternative tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.