Read one sales_settings by id.
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": "sales_settings_read"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The sales_settings id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as what happens when the id is missing or what kind of settings are returned.
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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, though the wording is extremely terse.
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-parameter read tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the definition is minimally adequate. However, it provides no information about the returned settings shape despite there being no output schema.
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 only one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the id field. The description merely repeats that the lookup is by id and adds no format or semantic detail beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: read one sales_settings by id. It distinguishes itself from sales_settings_list by emphasizing single-record retrieval, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sales_settings_numbering_read.
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 phrase 'by id' implies the tool is appropriate when a specific sales_settings identifier is known, but it does not explicitly say when to use this versus sales_settings_list or sales_settings_numbering_read.
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.