Fetches the schema for a specific RomM API operation and resolves referenced component schemas on demand, helping you inspect request and response structures.
Fetch one operation's schema; resolve #/components/schemas/... on demand.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| schema_ref | No | ||
| operation_id | Yes | ||
| response_pointer | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that schema references can be dereferenced on demand, but says nothing about pagination behavior for limit/offset or how response_pointer alters output.
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 compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The semicolon-clause about #/components/schemas/... is slightly cryptic but does carry information.
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?
Five parameters with 0% schema coverage, including pagination controls, and the description addresses only the schema-fetch/ref-resolution aspect. An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but the parameter and pagination story is materially incomplete for a tool of this complexity.
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 0%, so the schema documents parameter names only. The description hints at schema_ref/pointer resolution behavior but leaves limit, offset, and response_pointer entirely unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.
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: 'Fetch one operation's schema', and adds the second capability of resolving component schema references. An agent can distinguish this introspection tool from data fetchers like get_rom, though siblings such as romm_api_list and romm_api_read are never named for contrast.
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?
'resolve ... on demand' faintly implies when ref resolution is needed, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no routing among the api_* siblings (romm_api_list, romm_api_read, romm_artifact). The agent must infer the boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.