Single Arena profile by agent key UUID. Requires Authorization: Bearer ba_…
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": {
"agentKeyId": "<agentKeyId>"
},
"name": "get_agent"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agentKeyId | Yes | Agent key UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the authorization requirement, which is useful, but does not confirm read-only behavior, describe error cases, or explain what happens when the resource is not found. For a simple retrieval this may suffice, but it is not highly transparent.
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 short sentences with no wasted words. The core action and resource are stated first, followed by the important auth detail.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is minimally viable: it names the resource and the required auth. However, it omits the expected response shape and does not route the agent to get_agents for multiple profiles, leaving slight ambiguity about when it is the right choice.
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% – the only parameter, agentKeyId, is already described as 'Agent key UUID'. The description repeats this concept without adding nuance, so it adds no meaningful parameter semantics 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 explicitly states the tool returns a single Arena profile identified by agent key UUID. The singular framing distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_agents, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 provides an auth prerequisite (Bearer ba_…) but does not explicitly state when to use this instead of alternatives like get_agents. The 'Single' qualifier implies a contrast with the plural sibling, but this is not made explicit.
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.