GET /content-automations/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| query | No | Optional query overrides for endpoints with sparse parameter schemas. | |
| brand_id | No | ||
| workspace_id | No | Workspace to operate in. Do not ask the user for this UUID — call aidelly_list_workspaces and use the `id` of the matching workspace. Optional for read operations; required when creating content. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / workspace_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Workspace to operate in. Do not ask the user for this UUID — call aidelly_list_workspaces and use the `id` of the matching workspace. Optional for read operations; required when creating content."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the path. It does not contradict annotations, but it fails to complement them with any extra information.
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 extremely concise (one line), which is good, but it sacrifices essential semantics. It is underinformative rather than efficiently informative.
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?
With 4 parameters, no output schema, and nested objects, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks any explanation of the return value, parameter roles, or how the tool fits into the API workflow.
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 50%, but the tool description does not describe any parameters. For parameters like 'brand_id' and 'query', the description provides no meaning or usage hints, failing to compensate for the schema gaps.
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 is merely the HTTP path 'GET /content-automations/{id}', which tautologically repeats the tool name without stating that it retrieves a specific content automation by ID. A clear verb+resource statement is missing.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'aidelly_get_content_automations' (list all) or 'aidelly_put_content_automations_id' (update). No context for when to avoid 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.