get_themeGet a single theme by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Theme ID (from list_themes) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | The theme — id, name, tokens, cover_page, thank_you_page and is_default. | |
| success | Yes | True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "description": "The theme — id, name, tokens, cover_page, thank_you_page and is_default.",
+ "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?
Annotations already communicate that the operation is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the behavioral scoping that it returns exactly one theme rather than a list, but does not disclose additional behaviors such as error outcomes or permission requirements.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the essential operation and selection mechanism in the fewest possible 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?
Given the tool's low complexity—one required parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations—the description is fully sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.
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 id parameter is already documented as 'Theme ID (from list_themes)'. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('theme'), and selection criterion ('by ID'), clearly distinguishing it from list_themes and theme mutation tools. It leaves no ambiguity about what operation is performed.
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 makes the core usage clear: retrieve an individual theme when you have its ID. It doesn't explicitly mention list_themes as the alternative for fetching multiple themes, but the context is clear enough that no exclusion is needed.
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.