axiorank_get_policyFetch one outbound policy by id, scoped to your workspace. Requires the policies:read scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| policyId | Yes | The policy's UUID (from axiorank_list_policies). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the scope requirement (`policies:read`), which is valuable beyond annotations. No mention of error cases or return format, but given annotations cover safety, this is sufficient.
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 concise sentence that starts with the core purpose ('Fetch one outbound policy by id'). No unnecessary words or repetition. All information is front-loaded and efficient.
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 get-by-ID tool with a single parameter and good annotations, the description covers essential aspects (operation, scope, parameter source). Missing hints about return value or error handling, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity.
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 coverage is 100% with a description for the only parameter (policyId). The description does not add additional semantics beyond 'from axiorank_list_policies', which is already in the schema. Baseline score of 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?
Description clearly specifies the action ('Fetch'), resource ('one outbound policy by id'), and scope ('scoped to your workspace'). It distinguishes from siblings like axiorank_list_policies (lists all) and axiorank_create_policy (creates).
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?
Explicitly states the use case (fetch single policy by id). While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like list_policies for listing all, the context and sibling names make the distinction clear. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' 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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, covering different aspects of agent, policy, incident, and threat management with no overlap. Tools like axiorank_list_agents and axiorank_get_agent are differentiated by list vs. get, and quarantine vs. revoke serve different use cases.
All tools follow a consistent 'axiorank_verb_noun' pattern in snake_case, making it easy to predict tool names based on action and resource. No mixing of conventions or abbreviations.
With 22 tools, the server covers a comprehensive security governance domain. While slightly above the typical 'well-scoped' range, each tool serves a specific function and the count is justified by the breadth of features (agents, policies, incidents, scoring, verification, audit).
The tool surface covers agent and policy lifecycle (CRUD except delete), incident querying, scoring, verification, and audit. Minor gaps include missing delete operations for policies and incidents, and no way to update incident status. However, the core workflows are well-supported.