Retrieve canonical information, aliases, metadata, and connected relationships for any entity ID to verify claims and explore knowledge graph connections.
Retrieve canonical information, aliases, metadata, and connected relationships for a specific entity ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | Yes | Canonical entity ID (e.g. entity:organization:ai-build-infra) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is a read-only retrieval and names the categories of data returned, which is useful; however, it does not describe output shape, failure behavior, or whether relationships are resolved recursively.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase ('canonical information, aliases, metadata, connected relationships') earns its place by communicating scope.
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 simple (one required parameter) and the description plus schema are enough for basic invocation. However, there is no output schema and no mention of response format or edge-case behavior, and the overlap with sibling tools is left unresolved.
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 coverage is 100%: entity_id is defined with an example and required flag. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline 3.
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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') plus the resource ('canonical information, aliases, metadata, and connected relationships') for a given entity ID, so an agent can tell this is a point lookup. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from find_relationships or explain_entity, which may also surface relationship/entity detail, so it loses the sibling-differentiation point.
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 given about when to choose get_entity over search_entities or find_relationships. The phrase 'specific entity ID' hints that the caller must already have an ID, but no exclusions or alternative routing are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.