zoho_get_recordGet a single record by ID from a Zoho CRM module.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Record ID | |
| module | Yes | Module name (e.g., Leads, Contacts, Deals) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | The retrieved record object | |
| error | No | Error code if connection not available | |
| message | No | Error message if connection not available |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "The retrieved record object",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "description": "Error code if connection not available",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "description": "Error message if connection not available",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": "1234567890123456789",
+ "module": "Deals"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is established. The description adds no additional behavioral details such as authentication, error cases, or field selection, but it doesn't contradict annotations. Minimal extra value beyond annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.
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, clear sentence that front-loads the essential purpose. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or filler.
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?
This is a simple two-parameter read operation with a rich output schema and strong annotations. The description, combined with the schema and annotations, fully covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and safety profile. No significant gaps remain.
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%, with both 'id' and 'module' described in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'get', the resource 'single record by ID', and the context 'Zoho CRM module'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zoho_list_records or zoho_search_records, which handle multiple records or different query mechanisms.
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 implies the use case: when you have a specific record ID and module name. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'by ID' phrasing makes the intended use clear against the broader list/search siblings. This is clear context without exclusions.
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.