spike_get_serviceGet one service by its counterId — {service, org, openIncidentsCountForService, incidents, badgeURL}. Spike: GET /services/{counterId} (team-scoped).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| teamId | No | The 24-char hex team _id to scope this request to (x-team-id). Omit to use the configured default (SPIKE_TEAM_ID). List ids with spike_list_teams. | |
| counterId | Yes | The service's counterId (from spike_list_services). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. Description adds that it is a GET request and team-scoped, and specifies the return shape, providing useful context beyond annotations.
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?
Single sentence plus API endpoint note. Extremely concise and well-structured, no unnecessary words.
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 read tool, the description is complete enough. It explains the return fields and scoping. Lacks explicit usage alternatives but overall adequate for the tool's complexity.
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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no extra information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides; it mentions counterId and team-scoped but the schema already documents both.
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?
Clearly states it retrieves a single service by counterId, lists returned fields, and specifies the HTTP method and scope. Distinguishes from sibling tools like spike_list_services.
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?
Mentions team-scoped, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus other tools like spike_list_services or alternatives. Usage guidance is implied but not explicit.
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.