Fetch the complete program record by ID from the Hermes DB database. Use it to retrieve full university-program details including fit scores, verification status, and URLs.
Return the full program row by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| program_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Return' implies a read-only fetch, but it says nothing about permission requirements, behavior when the id does not exist, or whether results are cached — significant omissions for an unannotated tool.
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 short sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is padded or 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?
An output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed, and the tool is simple (one param, no nesting). Still, with no annotations and no error/not-found behavior described, the definition is only minimally adequate.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the single integer program_id. 'By id' does clarify that the parameter is the program's identifier, but adds no format, range, or source-of-value detail beyond that.
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 ('Return the full program row by id'), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from the write siblings (add_program, update_program_fit, mark_program_verified). It does not explicitly contrast itself with list_programs, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.
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 id' implies a single-record lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of list_programs as the alternative for multiple records, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer the routing from the sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.