Retrieve details of a specific module by providing its project ID and module ID, returning the module's data.
Get details of a specific module
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| module_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the module to get | |
| project_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the project containing the module |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5-8seneca.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets details' but doesn't clarify what details are returned, whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, or how errors are handled. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It avoids redundancy and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential action.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details, usage context, and output information. For a simple read operation, it's functional but could be more helpful by adding context like return format or error cases.
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 100%, with both parameters ('module_id' and 'project_id') clearly documented in the schema as UUID identifiers. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining why both IDs are required or how they relate. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific module'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_modules' by specifying retrieval of a single module rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other 'get_' tools like 'get_cycle' or 'get_state', which follow similar patterns.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_modules' for browsing modules or 'get_projects' for related data, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing both project and module IDs. Usage is implied by the name and parameters but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.