Get public-safe integration guidance for the optional standard model API family, covering auth, upload, submit, poll, result parsing, retry, errors, and pricing.
Return public-safe integration guidance for the optional standard model API family.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the burden. 'Public-safe' hints at what is redacted/omitted, which is useful, but there is no disclosure of latency, caching, auth requirements, or what 'public-safe' excludes. Read-only nature is only implied by 'Return'.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler. Appropriate length for a single-parameter lookup tool.
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 documentation-retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say what form the guidance takes, whether it is static or model-family-specific, and how the topic enum behaves. Several of these gaps remain.
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 coverage is 0%, but the single parameter is a fully enumerated topic list, so the schema itself conveys the value space. The description adds nothing about the enum values or the default when topic is omitted (it is not required).
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?
Clear verb ('Return') plus resource ('integration guidance') scoped to the 'optional standard model API family'. Distinguishable from siblings like rh_get_model_schema or rh_get_capabilities, though the 'optional standard model API family' phrasing is somewhat opaque without outside context.
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?
No statement of when to use this versus rh_get_model_schema, rh_get_capabilities, or rh_build_example_payload, which cover adjacent ground. The reader has to infer that this is the documentation-lookup tool for integration topics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.