Inspect award references: get site palettes, tech, awards, evidence, section media, gallery records, or compare 2-3 sites to show shared traits, gaps, and unknowns.
Inspect award refs: site_details (palette/tech/awards/evidence), site_elements (section visuals with media URLs), element (one gallery record), compare_sites (2-3 refs: shared vs gaps, missing marked unknown).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | ||
| slug | No | ||
| slugs | No | ||
| elementSlug | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Inspect' implies a read-only lookup and it discloses mode-level behavior plus the notable rule that missing refs are 'marked unknown' in compare_sites, but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or what a failed lookup returns.
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 dense sentence with nested parentheses that is front-loaded with the verb and mode list, so nothing is wasted. But the parenthetical stacking makes the mode-to-argument mapping hard to scan; a short bulleted list would serve an agent better.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden for a 4-parameter, 4-mode tool. It describes roughly what each mode returns, which is the minimum viable, but leaves the slug/slugs/elementSlug mapping to inference.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: it ties the four modes to meanings but never says which parameter each consumes (slug for site_details, slugs for compare_sites, elementSlug for element). It does confirm the 2-3 slug constraint for compare_sites, which is genuinely useful.
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?
Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Inspect award refs') and enumerates the four modes as different views of award data, which separates it from aura_award_search/aura_award_index. It never explicitly names those siblings, so the distinction is inferred rather than stated.
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 mode list implies when each mode applies (site-level vs element-level vs multi-site comparison), which is useful context. However, there is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus aura_award_search or aura_award_index, and no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.