get_dealRead one Deal in full, given its id: stage, amountCents (whole cents) and currency, expected close date, closing details, Company, owner and its Contacts with their roles. Use search or list_deals first to get the id. An unknown id returns NOT_FOUND. Needs the Deals module: without it, PRECONDITION_FAILED.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The Deal's id, from search or list_deals. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"The Deal's id, from search or list_deals."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the NOT_FOUND response for unknown ids and the Deals-module precondition that yields PRECONDITION_FAILED. It does not mention pagination or payload size, but for a single-record read that is minor.
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?
Two dense sentences with no wasted words: the first front-loads what is returned, the second front-loads the id-sourcing prerequisite. Error and precondition details are appended, not buried.
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?
There is no output schema, so naming the returned fields is essential and it is done thoroughly. Combined with the id-provenance guidance and the two error/precondition cases, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents itself as 'The Deal's id, from search or list_deals.' The description restates the provenance of the id but adds no 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 ('Read one Deal in full, given its id') and enumerates the returned fields (stage, amountCents, currency, close date, Company, owner, Contacts). It is clearly distinguishable from the list/search siblings, which are named as the id source rather than as alternatives for the same read.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use search or list_deals first to get the id,' naming the alternatives and the precondition that selects them. It also states what happens on an unknown id (NOT_FOUND) and the module requirement (PRECONDITION_FAILED), so the agent knows failure modes before calling.
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.