Retrieve complete details for a Spring project by name to access its documentation, guides, and tutorials.
Récupère les détails complets d'un projet Spring spécifique
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offset | No | Position (en caractères) pour lire la suite d'un document tronqué, fournie dans le pied de la réponse précédente | |
| projectName | Yes | Le nom du projet Spring (ex: 'spring-boot', 'spring-security', 'spring-data') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "default": 0,
+ "description": "Position (en caractères) pour lire la suite d'un document tronqué, fournie dans le pied de la réponse précédente",
+ "maximum": 10000000,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / projectName / maxLengthAdded value: +100v1.2.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Récupère' implies a read, but nothing is said about truncation or the continuation flow – even though the schema's offset parameter reveals that responses can be truncated and continued. It also omits whether the operation is safe/idempotent or what happens when projectName is unknown.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a tool whose response can be truncated and continued.
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 one-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but thin: it never characterises what 'détails complets' includes, and with no annotations and no output schema the agent gets no picture of the return shape or the truncated-response flow.
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%, so both parameters (projectName and offset) are already fully documented in the schema, including examples for projectName and the truncation semantics for offset. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Récupère les détails complets d'un projet Spring spécifique'), so an agent knows this is a single-project lookup rather than a search. It does not, however, contrast itself with closely related siblings like get_spring_reference, get_spring_guide or search_spring_projects, and 'détails complets' leaves the exact payload vague.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the right call for fetching one project rather than searching or listing projects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.