get_itemGet one item by id. Foreign org ids return not found.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"item_id": "<item_id>"
},
"name": "get_item"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes | ||
| sheet_number | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds a useful error-behavior detail: foreign org ids return not found. It does not describe the returned item shape or how sheet_number affects retrieval.
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 short sentences with no wasted text, and the main purpose is front-loaded. The error caveat follows immediately and does not obscure the primary action.
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 by-id read tool with annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but thin. It omits the meaning of sheet_number and does not explain the returned item, which matters because there is no output schema.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints that item_id is an id; the optional sheet_number parameter is completely undocumented in both the schema and the description.
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 item by id." That clearly distinguishes it from list_items and search_items, though it does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.
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 implies the tool is for retrieving a single item when an id is known, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. There is no mention of when list_items or search_items would be more appropriate.
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.