get_assetGet a single asset by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Asset ID (from list_assets). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | The saved section — id, name, description, tags and the datasources it draws on. Its widgets come from list_asset_widgets. | |
| success | Yes | True when the call succeeded. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / properties / success / descriptionPrevious value: -"True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead."New value: +"True when the call succeeded."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "description": "The saved section — id, name, description, tags and the datasources it draws on. Its widgets come from list_asset_widgets.",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "description": "True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "success"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only cardinality ('single') and lookup method ('by ID'), which is mildly useful but does not disclose additional behavior such as not-found handling or permissions, though the output schema covers the return shape.
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?
Six words, front-loaded with the verb and object, with no redundant phrases or filler. Every word earns its place for a single-resource getter.
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 one-parameter read-only lookup with annotations and an output schema available, the description is nearly sufficient; an agent can call it once it has an ID. It is not a 5 because the undefined 'asset' term and lack of any usage context leave slight ambiguity in a toolset with many get_* siblings.
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 one parameter already documents its provenance ('Asset ID (from list_assets)'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing that lookup is by ID, so the schema carries the load and a baseline score 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 gives a concrete verb-resource pair ('Get a single asset') and an identifier criterion ('by ID'), making the tool's purpose immediately recognizable and separating it from list_assets. However, it never defines what qualifies as an 'asset' and does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_report, get_widget, or get_template beyond the noun, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the description simply restates the operation. The schema's 'Asset ID (from list_assets)' hint implies a prerequisite, but the description itself does not route the agent to list_assets first or contrast with get_report/get_widget/list_assets.
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.