GET /v1/posts/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| workspaceId | Yes | Workspace ID from list_workspaces. Permissions are checked for this workspace on every call. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| body | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| content | No | ||
| createdAt | Yes | ||
| createdBy | Yes | ||
| updatedAt | Yes | ||
| scheduledAt | Yes | ||
| workspaceId | Yes | ||
| approvalMode | 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, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the HTTP method, but it does not contradict the annotations. With annotations carrying the burden, a 3 is appropriate.
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 extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It provides no human-readable explanation of the operation, response, or context, so the single line does not earn its place as a useful tool description.
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?
Although an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is incomplete for an agent trying to select this tool. It does not clarify what resource is returned, how it differs from get_posts, or what the id path parameter refers to. The workspaceId description helps, but the core purpose is missing.
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 50%: workspaceId has a helpful description, but path.id has only a type. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema partially documents parameters and the endpoint pattern implies the id is the post identifier.
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 is just the HTTP endpoint 'GET /v1/posts/{id}', which restates the tool name and gives no verb beyond the HTTP method. It does not state what a post is, what the response contains, or how it differs from siblings like get_posts or get_post_history.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes get_posts, get_post_history, and get_posts_postId_comments, but the description does not mention any selection criteria or exclusions.
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.