agents_getGet one agent by id with its settings and its knowledge documents' content.
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": "agents_get"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The agent's ID (UUID). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description only needed to add context — and it does, disclosing that the payload bundles settings plus the content of the agent's knowledge documents, which is non-obvious and implies a potentially heavy response. It doesn't mention permissions, error behavior for missing/invalid ids, or payload size, keeping it below 5.
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 sentence, front-loaded with verb and scope, with the return composition appended as a useful qualifier. Nothing extraneous and nothing missing that belongs there.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must hint at return values — it does by naming settings and knowledge document content. That is sufficient for an agent to know what it receives, though it omits whether related sub-resources (e.g., linked domains) or pagination are involved.
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 parameter is fully documented as a UUID in the schema. The description's "by id" adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, so baseline 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?
States a specific verb (get), resource (agent), scope (one, by id), and even enumerates what comes back (settings and knowledge documents' content), which distinguishes it from agents_list and from agents_knowledge_documents_*. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, so 4 rather than 5.
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?
Usage is implied by "get one agent by id" — the agent can infer this is the single-record retrieval versus agents_list. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no note that agents_update should be used for changes, and no prerequisites 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.