Read one settlement_proposal 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": "settlement_proposal_read"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The settlement_proposal id. |
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. The description adds only 'Read one ... by id,' which restates the read operation and does not disclose additional behavior such as not-found handling, return shape, or access constraints.
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, front-loaded with the verb and resource. There is no filler or redundant text, so it is appropriately concise for a simple single-record read tool.
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 with full annotations, the description is minimally sufficient: an agent knows to pass an id to retrieve one settlement proposal. However, because there is no output schema and the description does not describe the returned object or error behavior, it is not fully complete.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single id parameter, so the schema already documents its meaning. The description's 'by id' adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline case for fully covered parameters.
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 settlement_proposal by id.' The word 'one' distinguishes it from the sibling settlement_proposal_list, but it does not explicitly differentiate from settlement_proposal_accept or settlement_proposal_propose_cross_tenant.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as settlement_proposal_list or settlement_proposal_accept. 'By id' implies the caller must already know an id, but the description never states that condition or any exclusions.
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.