Read one team_assignment 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": "team_assignment_read"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The team_assignment id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating that it is a read operation, such as error behavior or what happens with a missing/invalid 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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core operation efficiently and is appropriately sized for a one-parameter 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 tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke correctly. However, it does not mention what a team_assignment contains or what the caller should expect to receive, and it lacks any usage context relative to the many sibling tools.
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% and the single 'id' parameter is documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that the id identifies one team_assignment, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries parameter documentation.
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 team_assignment by id.' The scope ('one', 'by id') implicitly distinguishes it from the list variant, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools such as team_assignment_list.
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 team_assignment_list or the mutation siblings. The phrase 'by id' implies the prerequisite of already having an id, but no alternatives, exclusions, or usage conditions are stated.
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.