knack_get_recordFetch a single record by id. Knack API: GET /objects/{object_key}/records/{record_id}. Returns the bare record (with both field_x and field_x_raw values).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recordId | Yes | The record id (a hex string returned by Knack). | |
| objectKey | Yes | The Knack object (table) key, e.g. "object_1". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by stating 'Returns the bare record (with both field_x and field_x_raw values)', which gives specific information about the return format beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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 concise sentences front-loaded with the purpose, no redundant or extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.
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 tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and read-only nature, the description covers the core behavior and return details. Could mention error behavior (e.g., record not found) but overall adequate.
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 adequate parameter descriptions (recordId as hex string, objectKey as table key). The tool description does not add new semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states 'Fetch a single record by id' and provides the API endpoint. It specifies the verb (Fetch) and resource (single record by id), distinguishing it from sibling tools like knack_list_records (multiple records) and knack_create_record/knack_delete_record/knack_update_record (modify).
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as knack_list_records or knack_create_record. The description does not mention when not to use it or provide context for selection among siblings.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: CRUD for records, listing fields/objects/records, fetching application schema, and a generic request. No overlap in purpose.
All tools use 'knack_' prefix with verb_noun pattern (create_record, delete_record, etc.). The exception is 'knack_request' which lacks a verb, causing slight inconsistency.
9 tools is well-scoped for a Knack integration, covering essential CRUD, listing, schema retrieval, and an escape hatch.
Core CRUD operations are present, plus listing and schema. Missing batch operations or advanced filtering, but the generic request tool fills some gaps.