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. |
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, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description's 'Get' is consistent but adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as behavior when the theme does not exist or whether related assets are included. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no redundant words or filler. It earns its place entirely.
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 tool with full schema coverage, clear annotations, and an output schema, the description is almost complete. It could optionally mention not-found behavior or point to list_themes for enumeration, but nothing essential is missing given the other structured fields.
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 property is described as 'Theme ID (from list_themes)'. The description's 'by ID' adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already states. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('single theme by ID'), distinguishing it from sibling list_themes (which lists multiple themes) and mutations like create_theme/update_theme. An agent can immediately understand the tool's function without opening 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?
The description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_themes, or mention any preconditions like needing a valid ID from list_themes. The only usage hint ('from list_themes') appears in the schema parameter description, not in the tool description, so the description itself provides no routing guidance.
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.