get_widgetGet a single widget by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Widget ID (from list_widgets). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | The widget — id, name, type, chart, its datasource and query, its state, and its position. | |
| 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 widget — id, name, type, chart, its datasource and query, its state, and its position.",
+ "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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'by ID', which merely restates the operation. No contradiction exists, but there is also no extra disclosure about error behavior or auth needs.
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, tight sentence with the key information front-loaded. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.
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 simple get-by-ID operation with one documented required parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description plus schema fully cover what an agent needs to call it correctly. No critical context is missing.
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%, meaning the id parameter is fully described with 'Widget ID (from list_widgets).' The description itself adds no additional parameter detail, 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 the exact action ('Get'), resource ('widget'), and scope ('single ... by ID'), unambiguously distinguishing it from list_widgets and other widget-related operations. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.
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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The only implicit hint is that an ID is required, and the schema notes it comes from list_widgets, but there is no direct routing to sibling tools like list_widgets or get_widget_data, nor any exclusions.
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.