twenty_get_opportunityGet a single opportunity by id. Twenty REST: GET /rest/opportunities/{id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The opportunity id. | |
| depth | No | How deep to hydrate related records: 0, 1, or 2. |
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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already discloses that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the REST GET method and the fact that it fetches by id, but it does not disclose additional behaviors such as error handling, authentication requirements, or return format. The bar is lower due to the annotation, and the description provides minimal extra context beyond it.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the REST path. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is highly concise and well-structured.
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-only single-object retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage and a readOnlyHint, the description covers the essential purpose. There is no output schema, but the response is implicitly the opportunity object. It could add a note about the response shape or error conditions, but this is a minor gap for such a straightforward GET tool.
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?
The schema descriptions cover both parameters (id and depth) with clear meaning, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description only mentions 'by id', which is already in the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema.
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 that the tool retrieves a single opportunity by its id, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('opportunity'). It also provides the exact REST endpoint, which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like twenty_list_opportunities and get tools for other entities.
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?
The description implies that this tool should be used when you have an id and need one specific opportunity, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., for listing multiple opportunities). No exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided, so guidance is only implicit.
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 follows a clear action-entity pattern, so there is no overlap; even the metadata listing is distinct from record operations. No two tools could be confused.
All tools use the twenty_<verb>_<entity> convention with verbs create/get/list/update, in lowercase snake_case. Naming is perfectly consistent across the set.
20 tools is slightly above the typical well-scoped range but justified by five core entities each needing create/get/list/update. However, the count feels a bit heavy, especially without delete tools.
The server covers create, read, and list for all entities, and update for most, but lacks delete operations entirely and does not support updating notes. These are notable gaps in full lifecycle management.