Retrieve complete details of a specific state in a project by providing the project and state UUIDs.
Get details of a specific state
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the state to get | |
| project_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the project containing the state |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5-8seneca.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'gets details' without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only nature (implied by 'get'), error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. It's minimal and doesn't add meaningful context beyond the basic action.
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, clear sentence with zero waste—'Get details of a specific state' is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, earning its place efficiently without unnecessary elaboration.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple read operation with two parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' includes, potential errors, or how it fits into the broader context of sibling tools, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer usage.
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 ('project_id' and 'state_id') well-documented in the schema as UUID identifiers. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.
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 'Get details of a specific state' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('state'), but it's vague about what 'details' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_states' or 'get_cycle'. It's functional but lacks specificity about scope or content of the returned details.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_states' (for listing all states) or other 'get_' tools. The description implies it's for retrieving a single state by ID, but there's no explicit comparison or context for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.