lgl_get_constituentFull details for one constituent by LGL id: names, salutations, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, groups, memberships and custom attributes. LGL: GET /api/v1/constituents/{id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Constituent id (integer). |
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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe-read profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by enumerating the scope of returned data (names, salutations, addresses, phones, emails, groups, memberships, custom attributes), telling the agent what 'full details' actually means.
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 front-loaded sentence plus a compact endpoint reference; nothing is wasted. The API path is arguably redundant but harmless for traceability.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description usefully compensates by naming the returned field groups, and the read-only annotation covers safety. For a single-parameter get, the agent has everything needed to call it correctly.
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?
Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents 'id' as a positive integer. The description adds no format or source guidance beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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 ('Full details for one constituent by LGL id') and scopes it to a single record, which cleanly separates it from the list_* and search_* siblings that return multiple entities. An agent can select it without ambiguity.
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 implied by the by-id framing: call it when you already have a constituent id and need the complete record. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over lgl_search_constituents, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.
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.