intakeq_get_intakeFetch one intake questionnaire with every question and answer, its consent forms and linked appointment. IntakeQ: GET /intakes/{id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| intake_id | Yes | The intake's id (a GUID). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe read, and the description usefully discloses what the response contains (questions/answers, consent forms, linked appointment), which is real added value. However it says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown id, auth requirements, or rate limits.
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?
Two tight sentences with the resource and payload front-loaded. The trailing 'IntakeQ: GET /intakes/{id}.' is mildly redundant with the annotations but harmless and confirms the read verb.
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 no output schema, the description partially compensates by enumerating the returned sections. For a single-parameter read tool with annotations and full schema coverage, this is close to complete; only error behavior is 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 the single intake_id parameter is documented as a GUID in the schema itself. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier, so 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 ('Fetch') plus the exact resource ('one intake questionnaire') and enumerates the payload contents (questions/answers, consent forms, linked appointment). The singular 'one intake' implicitly distinguishes it from intakeq_list_intakes.
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?
Usage is only implied: fetching a single intake by id versus the sibling list tool. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over intakeq_list_intakes, nor any prerequisite or error condition 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.