get_actOne of your ACTs as it stands, as GET /api/v1/acts/{id}. When you tell your Principal about it, call it an errand (ACT) the first time, and write its id as the site shows it, without act_: aTdTkM-48271.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ACT's id, with or without act_, such as aTdTkM-48271. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"The ACT's id, such as act_aTdTkM-48271."New value: +"The ACT's id, with or without act_, such as aTdTkM-48271."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns the ACT 'as it stands' and identifies the endpoint, but does not go beyond annotations with details about auth, scoping, rate limits, or returned fields.
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 short and front-loads the core purpose and endpoint. The second sentence includes communication guidance and an id-formatting example that are useful but slightly tangential to invocation.
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-only lookup with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the resource, the endpoint, and the id format. It does not describe the shape of the returned ACT, but the lack of output schema makes that less critical.
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 already well documented in the schema with the same act_ formatting example. The description repeats the id presentation rule, which is mildly useful, but adds little parameter semantics 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 operation and resource: reading one of your ACTs as it currently stands, and gives the backing endpoint GET /api/v1/acts/{id}. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like list_events or get_photo, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 list_events or other read tools. The sentence about how to tell the Principal is an output/communication instruction, not tool-selection guidance.
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.