get_feasibility_requestGet one feasibility request and its status or estimate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | Yes | ||
| organization_id | No | Platform admins only: select an organization for this operation. Required when changing another organization’s study or using its wallet. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | The requested feasibility request. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / organization_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Platform admins only: select an organization for this operation. Required when changing another organization’s study or using its wallet.",
+ "maxLength": 128,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / request_id / patternAdded value: +"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$"Output schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / properties / result / additionalPropertiesPrevious value: -trueNew value: +{}Output schema / properties / result / properties / cancelled_at / $refRemoved value: -"#/properties/result/properties/responded_at"Output schema / properties / result / properties / cancelled_at / descriptionAdded value: +"ISO 8601 timestamp."Output schema / properties / result / properties / cancelled_at / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]Output schema / properties / result / properties / estimated_timeline_hours / $refRemoved value: -"#/properties/result/properties/estimated_total_cost_per_interview_usd"Output schema / properties / result / properties / estimated_timeline_hours / typeAdded value: +[
+ "number",
+ "null"
+]Output schema / properties / result / properties / estimated_total_cost_usd / $refRemoved value: -"#/properties/result/properties/estimated_total_cost_per_interview_usd"Output schema / properties / result / properties / estimated_total_cost_usd / typeAdded value: +[
+ "number",
+ "null"
+]Output schema / properties / result / properties / expected_response_by / $refRemoved value: -"#/properties/result/properties/responded_at"Output schema / properties / result / properties / expected_response_by / descriptionAdded value: +"ISO 8601 timestamp."Output schema / properties / result / properties / expected_response_by / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]Output schema / properties / result / properties / target / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991Output schema / properties / result / properties / target / minimumAdded value: +-9007199254740991Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description's only added behavioral note is that the result carries 'status or estimate', which is largely redundant with the existing output schema; it says nothing about failure modes like an unknown request_id.
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 tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.
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 read-only single-record fetch with an output schema handling return values and annotations covering safety, the description is close to sufficient, merely noting the status/estimate content. It omits any error or not-found behavior, which is a minor gap.
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?
With schema description coverage at only 50%, the description should compensate for the undocumented request_id, but it adds no parameter meaning at all. The one non-obvious parameter (organization_id, with its admin-only restriction) is explained solely by the schema text.
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'), resource ('feasibility request'), and scope ('one'), which implicitly separates it from the plural list_feasibility_requests sibling. It never names that sibling or any other tool, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.
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 mention of when to prefer this over list_feasibility_requests or submit_feasibility_request, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing request_id). The retrieval-by-id usage is only implied by the schema's required request_id.
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.