Get X Spaces detail by space id.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"space_id": "<space_id>"
},
"name": "get_space_detail"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| space_id | Yes | Space id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
No schema history has been recorded yet.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on auth requirements, failure behavior for invalid or expired space ids, or what the 'detail' payload contains.
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?
One short front-loaded sentence with zero filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that it brushes against under-specification rather than exemplifying tight structure.
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?
The tool is simple (one required param, rich annotations), but there is no output schema, so the description is the only place that could indicate what 'detail' includes. It stays silent on return shape, making the definition only minimally adequate for an agent trying to use the result.
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% with a single required parameter, so the schema already documents space_id as a string. The description's phrase 'by space id' merely restates the schema and adds no format hints (e.g., where the id comes from or whether it is numeric/opaque). 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 X Spaces detail') and the lookup key ('by space id'), which is enough for an agent to know it returns details for a single Space. It does not differentiate itself from any sibling, though no other Spaces-related tool appears in the sibling list, so ambiguity is low.
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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives such as how to discover a space_id or what to do for bulk/listing needs. The single sentence gives no selection criteria at all.
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.