Fetch a specific saved view from a project by providing the project ID and view ID to access its details directly.
Get a specific saved view. This requests project_id and view_id as uuid parameters. If you do not have the view_id, use the list_project_views tool to find it
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| view_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the view to get | |
| project_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the project containing the view |
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 only restates that the tool requests two UUID parameters and says 'Get', which implies read-only behavior, but it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or any other operational characteristics.
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 two sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the alternative-tool guidance is the only additional context, making it tightly scoped and efficient.
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 tool is low-complexity and the schema fully covers parameters, but there is no output schema and the description does not state what the tool returns or what happens when the view is not found. This is a noticeable gap given that no annotations compensate for it.
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 view_id and project_id already documented as UUID identifiers. The description adds no semantic value beyond repeating that the parameters are UUIDs, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a specific saved view.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and, alongside the sibling list_project_views, distinguishes a single-resource fetch from list operations.
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 gives explicit routing guidance: 'If you do not have the view_id, use the list_project_views tool to find it.' This directly tells the agent when to use an alternative tool, making the selection logic unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.