supplier_getRead one supplier record in full by SUP number or name: every contact field, the payment terms, the lead time, the notes, and when the record was last reviewed. Reads only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| supplier | Yes | The supplier id, e.g. SUP-2026-0003, or the name when only one supplier has it |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description needs to add only what those signals do not. It adds the lookup-by-key and full-record scope plus the 'Reads only' statement, which is consistent but not heavily behavioral beyond the annotations.
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 front-loaded sentence with a second short safety clause; every phrase contributes scope, lookup key, or returned fields. There is no fluff.
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 one-parameter read tool with full annotations and schema coverage, the description tells an agent what it reads, how to address the record, and what fields to expect. No critical invocation detail is missing.
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 already explains the supplier id or unique-name format. The description's 'by SUP number or name' largely restates that parameter documentation, adding no new semantic detail.
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 begins with a specific verb and resource ('Read one supplier record in full') and enumerates the returned content, which clearly distinguishes it from list-style or mutation siblings like supplier_list or supplier_update. The title reinforces the one-record scope.
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 makes clear that it is for retrieving a single full supplier record by SUP number or name, which implies when to choose it over supplier_list or supplier_due_review. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.
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.