Get a single container by ID, including notes_count, children_count, description, negative_space (what does NOT belong in the folder), and LLM instructions if set. Optional: include_tree (boolean) to also get ancestor chain and children. Required: id (integer).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Container ID (required) | |
| include_tree | No | Include ancestors and children arrays (default: false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Container ID"New value: +"Container ID (required)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral details like returning notes_count, children_count, negative_space, and LLM instructions, plus the optional include_tree parameter. No contradictions.
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, well-structured sentence with a clear list of returned fields. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description fully enumerates the fields returned, including the optional tree structure. For a simple get-by-ID tool, this is complete and adequate.
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%, and the description adds context beyond the schema: it specifies id is required and explains include_tree as 'ancestor chain and children'. This adds value but is not exhaustive.
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 clearly states 'Get a single container by ID', specifying the verb and resource. It lists the fields returned and distinguishes from sibling tools like containers-list which would return multiple containers.
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 description clearly indicates when to use (get a single container by ID). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, such as suggesting containers-list for multiple containers, but the purpose is sufficiently clear.
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.