get_playbookGet a playbook with its singleton persona, skills, connected MCP servers, and memory. This is the only persona retrieval tool; there is no get_persona. Read-only. Requires playbooks:read or full permission. Use list_playbooks to discover IDs first, and get_skill when you need one skill's full content rather than the playbook summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| playbook_id | Yes | UUID of the playbook |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds value by specifying the required permission level and the scope of what is returned (singleton persona, skills, connected MCP servers, memory). No contradiction 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?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value: what it returns, uniqueness, read-only nature, permission requirement, and usage guidance. No fluff.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (returns multiple related entities), the description covers the key aspects: what is returned, how to get the ID, when to use an alternative, and permission requirements. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains the return scope. Annotations cover safety, so completeness is high.
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 100% (playbook_id is described as 'UUID of the playbook'), so the description doesn't need to add much. It mentions using list_playbooks to discover IDs, which provides context for the parameter's value. 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 the tool retrieves a playbook with its associated persona, skills, MCP servers, and memory. It explicitly notes this is the only persona retrieval tool, distinguishing it from siblings like get_skill and list_playbooks.
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?
Provides explicit guidance: use list_playbooks to discover IDs first, and use get_skill when needing one skill's full content. Also mentions required permissions (playbooks:read or full), which helps the agent decide when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct entity and action (e.g., delete_memory vs delete_skill vs delete_run), and even similar operations like read_memory vs search_memory vs get_memory_context have clearly differentiated purposes. The descriptions are detailed and explicitly cross-reference other tools to avoid confusion.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*, read_*, etc.), with plurals used uniformly for list operations (list_playbooks, list_runs, list_secrets). No mixed conventions or ambiguous verbs; the naming is highly predictable and systematic.
With 48 tools, the server covers a broad but coherent set of domains (playbooks, personas, skills, memory, canvas, runs, secrets, MCP servers, and discovery). While this exceeds the typical 3-15 range, each tool serves a distinct and necessary function within the comprehensive playbook management scope, so the count feels justified rather than bloated.
The tool surface provides complete CRUD and lifecycle coverage for every entity type: playbooks, personas, skills (including versioning and rollback), memory (including hierarchical tasks and tiering), canvas (with locking and patching), runs, secrets (including rotation and usage), and MCP servers. Additionally, find_tools covers discovery for federated tools, leaving no apparent dead ends.