get_rowFetch a single row by its key from a v2 app collection, through a dedicated relay route rather than a client-side scan. Returns { row }, or an isError row_not_found.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | The key of the row to fetch. | |
| app_id | Yes | The app id. | |
| collection | Yes | The collection name. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that the tool uses a dedicated relay route (efficiency detail) and specifies the return format: { row } or an isError row_not_found. This provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
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 two sentences long, front-loading the purpose and key behavioral details. Every word serves a purpose; no redundancy or fluff.
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?
For a simple fetch tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return format, and an implementation detail. It is mostly complete, though it could mention potential error scenarios beyond row_not_found (e.g., permissions).
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%, with each parameter described (key, app_id, collection). The description does not add further semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 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?
Description clearly states the tool fetches a single row by key from a v2 app collection, using an efficient relay route. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_rows, delete_row, etc., by focusing on single row retrieval.
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?
The description mentions using a dedicated relay route instead of client-side scan, implying efficiency when the exact key is known. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_rows or other fetch methods.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct, with row operations (list, get, upsert, update, delete, restore) well separated. Some boundaries like apps vs deploy_app and credentials vs grants require careful reading, but descriptions resolve the overlap.
Tool names mix resource nouns (apps, attachments, connections) with verb_noun actions (delete_row, deploy_app). Singular and plural forms are inconsistent, and there is no uniform pattern across the set.
24 tools is on the heavy side, but the platform's breadth (app deployment, data, auth, community) justifies the count. Each tool has a distinct role, though the set slightly exceeds the typical well-scoped range.
The surface covers the full app lifecycle: deploy, manage, delete, row CRUD with restore, attachments, credentials, and community features. Minor gaps like no dedicated row search or outbound webhook management are workable via existing tools.