Fetch one work item by id, including its cost rollup.
cost sums linked agent runs and process runs: input and output
tokens, USD (an estimate is flagged, never stored as a silent $0),
agent wall-clock time, and human review time kept separate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| work_id | Yes | Work item UUID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +trueOutput schema / propertiesRemoved value: -{
- "result": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ]
- }
-}Output schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "result"
-]Output schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-resultRemoved value: -trueDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral semantics: the cost rollup aggregates agent and process runs, sums tokens and USD, flags estimates rather than silently storing $0, and keeps agent wall-clock and human review time separate. It does not cover error behavior for a missing id or any permission requirements.
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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the second paragraph devoted to the cost semantics. That second paragraph is somewhat long for a field whose shape is also covered by the output schema, but it is not wasted text.
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 read-by-id tool with an output schema and full schema description coverage, the definition is essentially complete. The only omission is any note on failure mode when the id does not resolve.
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% and the single parameter is fully described as 'Work item UUID.' The description's 'by id' merely restates the schema, adding no format or constraint detail beyond it, 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: 'Fetch one work item by id.' The word 'one' and 'by id' implicitly distinguishes it from work_list, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not point to work_list as the discovery path or to work_update/work_close as follow-ups. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'by id'.
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.