get_unified_apicallRetrieve a single apicall by its ID from the connected account. Returns the full apicall record. Requires id (obtained from list_unified_apicalls). Use when you already have the ID; to search or list apicalls, use list_unified_apicalls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the apicall to get |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$defs": {
+ "ApiCall": {
+ "properties": {
+ "connection_id": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "created_at": {
+ "description": "The date that this object was created (ISO-8601 / YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ format)",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "endapi_response_time": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "environment": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "description": "The error description (if status code is >= 400)",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "external_xref": {
+ "description": "your customer's user ID",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Unique identifier for this API call",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "integration_type": {
+ "description": "The integration type",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "ip_address": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "is_billable": {
+ "type": [
+ "boolean",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "method": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "The called name of the API method",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "path": {
+ "description": "The called API method's HTTP verb and route path (PUT /crm/{integration}/deak/{id})",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "size": {
+ "description": "The size of the response",
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "description": "The resulting HTTP status code (200)",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "description": "The type of API Call being logged. One of: login, webhook, inbound, mcp",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "unified_response_time": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "user_agent": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "webhook_id": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "workspace_id": {
+ "description": "(reference to KmsSpace)",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": [
+ "object",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/ApiCall",
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / fieldsRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Comma-separated list of fields to include in the response",
- "type": "string"
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only that it returns the full apicall record and where the ID comes from; with an output schema present, return-format detail isn't required. Modest added value over annotations, so a 3.
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 sentences, each earning its place: action, return, then precondition and alternative. The routing information is front-loaded and there is no filler.
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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers action, input provenance, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100% for the single id parameter, so the schema already documents type and meaning; that sets the baseline at 3. The description's note that the ID is obtained from list_unified_apicalls adds provenance the schema lacks, but not enough to lift it above baseline.
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 verb and resource ('Retrieve a single apicall by its ID') plus the source ('from the connected account'). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling list_unified_apicalls, which is named explicitly.
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?
Gives the precondition ('Requires id, obtained from list_unified_apicalls') and an explicit when-not rule ('to search or list apicalls, use list_unified_apicalls'). The alternative is named and the selecting condition is stated, leaving nothing to inference.
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.