Read a specific DataLens object by exact type and ID, optionally specifying branch, revision, or view for targeted inspection.
Read one typed DataLens object by exact type, ID, branch and optional revision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| view | No | full | |
| branch | No | saved | |
| fields | No | ||
| object_id | Yes | ||
| object_type | Yes | ||
| revision_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the notable behavioral constraints that lookup is by exact type/ID and supports branch/revision scoping, but it does not explain branch semantics, revision fallback behavior, or failure modes for a missing object.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity contributes to the parameter gaps noted elsewhere.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should say what is returned, but it does not (e.g., whether a summary or full object is returned, how 'view' affects output). Given a read tool with two undocumented enum/array params and no output schema, this is only adequate.
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%, so the description must carry the load. It names object type, ID, branch and revision (4 of 6 params), but the 'view' enum (full/summary/projection) and the 'fields' projection array are left entirely undocumented in both description and 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 (Read) and resource (DataLens object) with the precise scope 'one' and 'by exact type, ID'. This distinguishes it from write siblings like dl_object_create/update/publish and from multi-object tools. It does not, however, differentiate itself from read-oriented siblings such as dl_object_relations or dl_object_diff.
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 implies usage ('exact type, ID') but never says when to choose this tool over alternatives like dl_object_relations, dl_object_diff, or any listing tool. There is no mention of prerequisites, branch selection rationale, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.