get_frame[read-only] One library frame with its sizes and content areas. (Wraps GET /api/v2/frames/{id}.)
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "get_frame"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the '[read-only]' tag adds nothing. The description does add real value by naming the underlying REST call and disclosing the returned payload shape (sizes and content areas), which annotations cannot convey. It stops short of error behavior for a missing/invalid 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?
Two tight sentences with the return content front-loaded; nothing is padded. The bracketed '[read-only]' is redundant with the annotations and is the one element that does not earn its place.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately signals the returned fields and the underlying endpoint, so an agent knows what to expect. It is nonetheless thin on the 'id' semantics and on failure modes, which matters given the 0% parameter coverage.
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 'id' parameter, so the description carries the burden and does not help — it never mentions the parameter. The only faint clue is the embedded route template '/frames/{id}', which implies the id identifies a frame, but no format or source for that id is given.
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?
States a specific resource ('One library frame') and what it contains ('its sizes and content areas'), which distinguishes it from list_frames and the write siblings create_frame/apply_frame. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closest sibling, get_frame_settings, leaving the agent to infer that settings are a different resource.
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 statement that this is for fetching a single known frame by id, and no pointer to list_frames for discovery or get_frame_settings for configuration. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
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.