get-contract[Auth Required] Get a single contract by id. Returns {contract, role_id, read, write, subContracts}. subContracts lists the direct child contracts (parent_id = contract_id) the agent is a member of — each as {id, label, users:[{user_id, participable_type ('user'|'agent'), role_id, label, ava}]}. Empty array for a leaf contract or one with no accessible children.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contract_id | Yes | Contract ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Although annotations are empty, the description discloses authentication requirements and details the return structure including subContracts with shape and edge cases. However, it does not explicitly state idempotency or confirm a read-only operation, which would be helpful given the lack of 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?
The description is highly concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and auth requirement, then efficiently details the return shape with an example for subContracts, fitting important information into a few lines.
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?
The description covers auth, return structure, and subContracts behavior. However, it omits explanations of what 'read' and 'write' flags represent and the meaning of 'role_id', which are part of the return shape. Given no output schema, these details would improve completeness.
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 already provides 100% coverage for the single param (contract_id described as 'Contract ID'). The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond 'by id', so 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 'Get a single contract by id' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like 'get-my-contracts' which lists multiple contracts. The return shape further differentiates it from other contract-related tools.
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 basic usage (use when you need a contract by ID) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives such as 'get-contract-members' or 'get-contract-events'. No exclusions or context-dependent advice is given.
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.