get_widgetGet a single widget by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| widget_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. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / idRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Widget ID (from list_widgets).",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / widget_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Widget ID (from list_widgets).",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id"
-]New value: +[
+ "widget_id"
+]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, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as error handling, not-found behavior, or response shape, though an output schema exists.
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 or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to the tool's core purpose.
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 one-parameter getter with an output schema and annotations covering read-only behavior, the description is complete. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already well-documented as 'Widget ID (from list_widgets)'. The tool description only repeats 'by ID' and adds no new meaning beyond the schema.
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'), a specific resource ('widget'), and the scope ('single widget by ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_widgets and get_widget_data.
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 implies usage when a single widget is needed by ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. The schema's 'from list_widgets' hint provides context, but the description itself offers no direct 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.