get_requestGet one Request by request_id (id, status, assignee, owner). Does not include the request body. Submit, list, acknowledge, and transitions stay on request. Prefer this over request action get. Read-only: does not advance the unread cursor. REST: GET /v1/requests/{id}. Idempotent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | Yes | Request id, from list_requests, space_state or a message's request_id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, it discloses important behavior: the request body is excluded, the unread cursor is not advanced, and the REST endpoint is GET /v1/requests/{id}. These are non-obvious operational details for an agent.
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 front-loaded and efficient, but it repeats some annotation information such as read-only and idempotent. The sentence about actions staying on request is slightly compressed but useful.
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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the returned fields and the important exclusion of the request body. It could say more about not-found behavior, but it is complete enough for this simple read tool.
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?
The schema has 100% description coverage and documents the only parameter, request_id, including where to obtain it. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema for this parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource: get one Request by request_id, and lists key fields returned. It also explicitly distinguishes this from listing and mutating request actions.
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?
It explicitly says to prefer this over 'request action get' and clarifies that submit, list, acknowledge, and transitions belong on the request tool. This gives clear routing guidance against siblings.
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.