Full detail of one captured request: method, path, headers (names lowercased; same-name duplicates keep their order, cross-name order not preserved), body as text (body_base64 rides along only when the raw bytes were not valid UTF-8 — signature checks need exact bytes), remote_ip, expiry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | Yes | Captured request id (uuid) from list_hook_requests or wait_for_hook_request. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important details: header names are lowercased, duplicate names preserve order but cross-name order is not preserved, body is text with body_base64 included only when raw bytes are not valid UTF-8. It does not state read-only nature but is largely transparent.
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 that front-loads the purpose and lists all key fields with nuanced details. Every word adds value without redundancy.
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 lacking an output schema, the description comprehensively covers the returned fields and their behaviors. It accounts for edge cases like body_base64 and header ordering. Minor omission: no mention of response format (assumed JSON), but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single required parameter request_id, providing its type, format, and source. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, 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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving full details of a captured request including method, path, headers, body, remote_ip, and expiry. It immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_hook_requests and wait_for_hook_request by focusing on a single request's complete detail.
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 implies usage after obtaining a request_id from list_hook_requests or wait_for_hook_request, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.