Get Garment
get_garmentGet a specific garment by ID.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| garment_id | Yes | The garment ID to retrieve |
get_garmentGet a specific garment by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| garment_id | Yes | The garment ID to retrieve |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., not-found behavior, return details), but with annotations present, the value added is limited. It does not contradict 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?
One short sentence that is front-loaded and earns its place. No wasted words or redundant restating of the tool name.
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?
The tool is a simple get-by-ID with one parameter and no output schema. Annotations cover the safety profile. The description plus schema is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly; no additional detail is essential.
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%: the single parameter garment_id is fully described as 'The garment ID to retrieve'. The description 'a specific garment by ID' adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 'Get a specific garment by ID' clearly states the verb (get), resource (garment), and singular scope (specific, by ID). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_garments, which retrieves multiple garments.
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 description implies usage when you need one garment by ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_garments or update_garment. No when-not-to-use or alternative names are provided, so it only meets the implied usage level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.