Get full details of a specific survey including all questions.
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": {
"survey_id": "<survey_id>"
},
"name": "get_survey"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| survey_id | Yes | The survey ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra context such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the survey is not found, but it is consistent with the annotations and adds no contradiction.
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 a single concise sentence that fully communicates the purpose and scope without extraneous information. It is well-structured and immediately understandable.
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 get-by-ID tool, the description covers the essential purpose and scope ('full details including all questions'). There is no output schema, but the description gives enough context about what the response will contain. It lacks notes on error conditions or return format specifics, but those are not critical for this low-complexity 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 input schema already describes survey_id as 'The survey ID' with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning about the parameter, such as format requirements or examples, so it provides no value 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Get full details') and the resource ('a specific survey'), and it specifies scope ('including all questions'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_surveys, which likely returns summaries, and get_analytics, which targets analytics data.
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 phrase 'specific survey' implies the need for a survey_id and suggests this tool is for retrieving detailed data for one survey, not for listing surveys. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.
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.