review_getOne review card by id, including its full payload (draft text, options, research). Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Review card ID returned by review_list or review_get. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | Yes | The requested review card. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"Review card ID returned by review_list or review_get."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "item": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "The requested review card.",
+ "properties": {
+ "actions": {
+ "description": "The exact action verbs this card accepts.",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "createdAt": {
+ "description": "Unix epoch milliseconds.",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "detail": {
+ "description": "Additional context, when available.",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Review card ID for review_get and review actions.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "kind": {
+ "description": "Card kind, such as approval, question or update.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "options": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "label": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "value": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "label",
+ "value"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "description": "Choices accepted by review_answer with action choose."
+ },
+ "payload": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "description": "Source-specific draft, evidence or decision data."
+ },
+ "primaryLabel": {
+ "description": "Label of the dashboard's primary action.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "prompt": {
+ "description": "The question or approval request.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "sourceType": {
+ "description": "The work that produced this card, when available.",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "description": "Current review state, including pending or needs_revision.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "summary": {
+ "description": "Short summary, when available.",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "description": "Short title of the proposed work or decision.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "updatedAt": {
+ "description": "Unix epoch milliseconds.",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "kind",
+ "sourceType",
+ "status",
+ "title",
+ "actions",
+ "primaryLabel"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "item"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' is a restatement that adds no new safety information. The one piece of added value is describing what the card payload contains, though an output schema exists that likely covers this.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence stating the resource, the key, and the payload, with zero filler. Nothing restates the name or wastes the agent's attention.
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 rich annotations, full schema coverage, a single required parameter, and an output schema handling return values, the description is nearly complete for a simple fetch. Minor gaps remain around not-found/error behavior and explicit routing away from review_list, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly 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% and there is only one parameter, whose ID format and provenance are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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 ('One review card by id') and enumerates the payload contents (draft text, options, research), which is more informative than the title alone. It implies the single-item counterpart to review_list but never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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 by 'by id' – an agent infers it should call this when it already holds a card ID (as the schema also notes, IDs come from review_list or review_get). There is no explicit when-to-use versus review_list, no prerequisite statement, and no guidance on what to do if the ID is unknown.
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.