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.
Input schema / properties / id / minLengthAdded value: +1Output 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 carry a rich safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context: it returns the full apicall record and discloses that the ID must come from list_unified_apicalls. It stops short of noting auth/permission needs or openWorld implications, so not a perfect 5.
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 tight sentences, all front-loaded and every one earning its place: what it does, what it returns, what it needs and where from, and when to prefer the sibling.
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?
With an output schema handling return values and rich annotations covering safety, the description covers the remaining gaps (ID provenance, single-record scope, sibling routing). An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.
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?
One parameter at 100% schema coverage sets the baseline at 3, but the description adds provenance ('obtained from list_unified_apicalls'), telling the agent where the required ID comes from — meaning beyond the schema's bare 'The ID of the apicall to get'.
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 (retrieve) and resource (a single apicall by ID) with clear scope. It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_unified_apicalls for search/list use, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.
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?
Names the condition that selects this tool ('Use when you already have the ID') and points to the explicit alternative ('to search or list apicalls, use list_unified_apicalls'). Nothing is left 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.