Retrieve the exact API contract for a OnePlatform operation by operationId, including method, route, parameters, request body, responses, and error codes—no API keys required.
Devuelve el contrato exacto de una operación de la OnePlatform API (método, ruta, parámetros, cuerpo, respuestas y códigos de error) a partir de su operationId. No necesita claves.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operationId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds a genuinely new behavioral fact the annotations do not encode: "No necesita claves" (no authentication required). It also discloses the shape of what is returned, which is valuable for a read tool with no output schema. It does not cover failure behavior for an unknown operationId or any caching/rate-limit traits.
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, front-loaded with the returned content, then the auth constraint. No filler or redundancy.
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?
The enumeration of return fields compensates well for the absent output schema, but with 0% parameter documentation and no sibling differentiation, an agent still lacks guidance on where operationIds come from and how this differs from the two docs_* tools.
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 parameter, so the description must compensate. It only repeats that input is an "operationId" and adds no format, origin (e.g., from docs_search results), or validity guidance beyond the regex already in the schema.
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+resource ("Devuelve el contrato exacto de una operación de la OnePlatform API") and enumerates exactly what the contract contains: método, ruta, parámetros, cuerpo, respuestas y códigos de error. It does not, however, name or contrast the sibling tools (docs_search, docs_get_page), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.
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?
Usage is only implied: the tool is the one to call when you have an operationId and need the full API contract. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no mention of the sibling docs tools as alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., how to first obtain an operationId).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.