get-opportunity-toolGet a single opportunity by ID with full details and relationships.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The opportunity ID to retrieve. | |
| include | No | Related records to expand in response. To-many relationships return at most 25 records with truncation metadata. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| relationship_meta | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is fully covered structurally. The description adds that results carry 'full details and relationships', but says nothing about error behavior for an unknown ID or the truncation limit that applies to expanded to-many relations.
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?
One short sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded and no filler. Nothing in it could be cut without losing information.
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?
With a full output schema and complete annotations, the description only needs to convey scope and it does so accurately. The one missing piece is what happens when the ID does not match, which is minor given the 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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'id' and 'include' are already documented, including the 25-record truncation rule for to-many expansions. The description mentions relationships generically but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get a single opportunity by ID') and scopes it to one record, which implicitly separates it from list-opportunities-tool and search. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so differentiation rests on the word 'single'.
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: an agent can infer this is for fetching one known opportunity ID, and the mention of relationships hints at using 'include'. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to list-opportunities-tool / search for discovery-style lookups.
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.