Get full configuration of a single livechat widget.
Returns all settings including theme, identification, actions, and more.
Use this when user wants to see or verify a specific widget's settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| widget_id | Yes | ID of the widget to retrieve | |
| in_workspace | No | Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / in_workspaceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful return content ('theme, identification, actions') but says nothing about failure modes such as an unknown widget_id or whether 'and more' hides fields. Adequate, not rich.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no filler. The trailing 'and more' is a minor hedge but overall the text is tight and easy to scan.
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 read-only getter with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and when to call it. No output schema exists, and the summary of returned settings partially compensates; only error/edge behavior is left unaddressed.
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% and both parameters (widget_id, in_workspace) are documented in the schema, including the non-obvious in_workspace session semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get full configuration of a single livechat widget') with scope made explicit by 'single', which implicitly separates it from the plural widgets_list and from widgets_get_embed_code. It stops short of naming those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.
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?
'Use this when user wants to see or verify a specific widget's settings' gives a concrete triggering condition. It does not mention alternatives (e.g. widgets_list for enumerating widgets, widgets_get_embed_code for embed markup), so there is no exclusion 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.