get_queryGet a single saved query by id, including its SQL and declared variables.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Saved query id from list_queries. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| sql | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| isShared | No | ||
| updatedAt | No | ||
| variables | No | Declared {{name}} variables, filled in by run_saved_query. | |
| folderPath | No | ||
| connectionId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseOutput schema / properties / variables / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "items": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "properties": {
- "name": {
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "type": {
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "name": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that SQL and declared variables come back, which is modest extra context, but says nothing about what happens for a missing/invalid id or access scoping.
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 with the resource and the returned contents; nothing extraneous and no filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and a one-param read-only tool needs little more. Only the error/not-found behavior is left unaddressed.
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 schema already explains the id parameter as coming from list_queries. The description only restates 'by id' without adding format, source, or error semantics 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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (a single saved query by id) and notes the payload includes SQL and declared variables, which distinguishes it from list_queries. It does not explicitly name the sibling it displaces, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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: fetch one saved query when you have its id. The description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and the pointer to list_queries for obtaining ids lives only in the schema, not the prose.
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.