roki_get_operationFull detail for one operation: method, path, headers, request schema field table, responses, and worked examples.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation | Yes | operationId (e.g. "createPayment"), or "METHOD /path" (e.g. "POST /payments"). |
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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe, read-only profile. The description adds valuable context by disclosing the exact contents of the returned detail: method, path, headers, request schema field table, responses, and worked examples.
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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and uses a colon to introduce the list of included components. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
This is a simple read-only retrieval tool with one well-defined parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations. The description fully covers what the tool returns and the schema fully covers the input, making the tool sufficiently documented for a capable agent.
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 single parameter 'operation' is fully described in the schema with concrete examples (operationId or METHOD /path). The tool description itself does not add additional parameter semantics, and since schema_description_coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 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 the tool retrieves full details of a single API operation, enumerating method, path, headers, request schema field table, responses, and worked examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like roki_list_operations (which lists operations) by focusing on one operation in full.
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 the tool is for when you need comprehensive details of a single operation, as opposed to listing operations. While it does not explicitly name alternatives, the focus on 'one operation' provides clear context for when to use it, and no exclusions are stated.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose, from searching docs to validating requests to verifying webhook signatures. Even similarly named tools like roki_get_integration_example and roki_scaffold_integration are differentiated by 'complete runnable' vs 'skeleton'.
Tools mostly follow a roki_verb_noun pattern (get, list, search, validate, verify), but a few deviate with noun-only names like roki_status and roki_sandbox_info. The prefix and clear verbs make the pattern predictable overall.
18 tools is on the heavy side, but each serves a distinct role in the integration workflow covered by this server. The count is justified given the breadth of documentation, validation, sandbox, and example generation features.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of an integration: discovery (search_docs, list_operations), learning (guides, examples, schemas), validation (validate_request), sandbox testing (sandbox_try), verification (verify_webhook_signature), and post-integration auditing. No obvious gaps for the server's stated purpose.