get_developer_requestPublic request, votes, confirmed funding and developer response. This URL is permanent and shareable. Public; no authentication required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| developer_request_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| developer_request | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the resource is public, requires no authentication, and the URL is permanent and shareable (implying stable, cacheable, non-expiring reads). It does not discuss error behavior for an unknown or malformed ID.
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?
Three short fragments with no filler, and the content list leads. The structure is terse to the point of being elliptical rather than fully sentence-formed, but nothing is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the auth/permanence facts are useful. However, for a lookup tool the description omits anything about resolving versus not-resolving IDs and how it relates to the sibling list endpoint, leaving clear gaps.
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 description coverage is 0% for the single required developer_request_id, so the description carries the burden and fails to compensate. It never mentions the ID, its expected 'dev_<32 hex>' format, or what happens when the ID does not resolve.
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 title states the action ('Read a request and its review status'), but the description itself is a noun phrase listing returned content ('Public request, votes, confirmed funding and developer response') rather than a verb+resource statement. It does not distinguish this tool from its near-identical sibling list_developer_requests, so an agent must infer the singular-vs-list distinction from the name and the required ID parameter.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite list_developer_requests being an obvious candidate the agent must choose between. The only usage-adjacent statement is 'Public; no authentication required,' which is access context rather than selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.