get_clientGet a single client by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Client ID (from list_clients) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | The client — id, name, website, currency, timezone, branding, theme_id, its folders and the datasources linked to it. | |
| 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."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Get' aligns with a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it also does not contradict them.
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 short sentence with no filler. It places the core action and object upfront and every word earns its place.
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 getter with annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema available, the description conveys all essential calling context. A minor gap is that it does not mention not-found behavior, but that is not required for invoking the tool correctly.
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%: the id parameter is required and described as 'Client ID (from list_clients)'. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it meets the baseline without surpassing it.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('a single client') and a selection mechanism ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_clients and count_clients without needing to explore the schema.
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 only implied: the tool is appropriate when you have a client ID and want one client. The parameter description hints that the ID comes from list_clients, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or exclusions. For a simple getter this is adequate but not explicit.
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.