get_gear_collectionRetrieve detailed information about a specific gear collection, including its gear items and associated activity types.
Get detailed information about a specific gear collection, including the gear items in the collection and associated activity types.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collectionUUID | Yes | The collection UUID (use get_gear_collections to find it) (required) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by specifying what data is returned (gear items and activity types), going beyond just saying 'details'. No contradictions with 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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the key deliverables. No waste or redundancy.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and supportive annotations, the description adequately covers the purpose, scope, and return content (gear items and activity types). It is complete for its complexity level.
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 param description includes a useful hint to use get_gear_collections to find the UUID. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 retrieves detailed information about a specific gear collection, explicitly listing gear items and associated activity types. This distinguishes it from the sibling get_gear_collections (which lists collections) by using 'specific' and 'detailed information'.
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 description implicitly indicates usage when you have a collectionUUID and need details. The schema parameter description provides clear guidance to first call get_gear_collections to find the UUID. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, but the context is clear enough for a simple get operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.