Get a complete public service or operation contract by slug, operation ID, name, or endpoint URL.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "get_service"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| referral_code | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / referral_codeAdded value: +{
+ "maxLength": 64,
+ "minLength": 22,
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It discloses only that the returned contract is 'complete'; it says nothing about authentication requirements, what happens when the identifier is not found, or what the referral_code parameter does behaviorally.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the identifier forms appended economically. No filler.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and one of two parameters undocumented, the description is under-specified. It omits referral_code semantics, error/not-found behavior, and any access requirements an agent needs to call it correctly.
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. It usefully clarifies that 'id' accepts slug, operation ID, name, or endpoint URL — information the bare string schema lacks — but leaves referral_code (a 22–64 character string) entirely unexplained, so only half the parameters gain meaning.
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 ('Get') and resource ('complete public service or operation contract') and enumerates the four lookup keys. It is distinguishable from search_services in intent (retrieve one full contract vs. search), but the description never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.
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 list of accepted identifiers (slug, operation ID, name, endpoint URL) implies how to invoke it, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over search_services, no prerequisites, and no guidance on which identifier form to choose.
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.