sota_summit_infoFind detailed summit information by entering a SOTA reference code (e.g., W7I/SI-001 or G/LD-001) to retrieve the summit details you need.
Get detailed summit information by SOTA reference code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| summit_code | Yes | SOTA reference (e.g., W7I/SI-001, G/LD-001). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully conveyed by structured data. The description adds nothing about what 'detailed' contains or whether lookups can miss, so it earns a baseline 3 rather than more.
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 efficient sentence with no filler, and the operation type is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though it is so terse that it leaves no room for routing hints.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and annotations cover the behavioral profile. Combined with a fully documented single parameter, the definition is complete enough for correct invocation; only sibling routing guidance is missing.
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 100% and the single parameter includes concrete examples (W7I/SI-001, G/LD-001), so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description only restates that lookup is keyed by code, adding no format or validation detail beyond the schema.
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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed summit information') keyed by SOTA reference code, which is clear enough for an agent to grasp. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the close sibling sota_summits_near, leaving the agent to infer that this is lookup-by-code rather than proximity search.
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 the required summit_code parameter and the 'by SOTA reference code' phrasing, so an agent can infer the call shape. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (e.g., use sota_summits_near when you lack a code), so guidance is only implicitly present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.