Get one shot
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"shotId": "<shotId>"
},
"name": "shot.get"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| shotId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Get" implies a read, but it does not disclose authentication needs, error behavior, whether missing shots are handled specially, or what the returned data looks like.
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 only three words and front-loads the verb and resource with no filler. That brevity becomes under-specification rather than strong conciseness, since it omits basic selection guidance.
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 get tool, the agent can infer that shotId is required from the schema, but there is no output schema and no description of return values or errors. The definition is too thin to fully support correct invocation and interpretation.
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%, and the only parameter, shotId, is undocumented in both schema and description. The description implies the shot is selected by an identifier but adds no format, source, or constraint details.
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 states a specific verb and resource, "Get one shot," and the singular "one" distinguishes it from shot.list. However, it does not explain what a shot contains or how this retrieval differs from other get-style sibling tools beyond the resource name.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no explicit routing to or from siblings such as shot.list or shot.update. The agent must infer that this is the single-item read operation.
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.