Retrieve a live operation's exact request parameters, requestBody, responses, and referenced component schemas before calling it. Inspect it to meet VoiceStudio API requirements and avoid errors.
Get a live operation's exact request parameters, requestBody, responses and referenced component schemas. Inspect this before calling it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what data is retrieved: request parameters, requestBody, responses, and referenced component schemas.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the retrieval purpose and followed by a clear usage directive. No filler or redundant restatement.
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?
Annotations cover the safety profile and there is no output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, for a 1-param tool with 0% schema description coverage, it should say more about operation_id, such as where it comes from or what format it uses.
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 single operation_id parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description implies it identifies an operation but does not explain its format, source, or how to obtain it, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 precise verb (Get) and resource (a live operation's exact request parameters, requestBody, responses, and referenced component schemas). This clearly distinguishes the tool from execution-oriented siblings like voicestudio_call_api and voicestudio_call_native.
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 phrase 'Inspect this before calling it' gives a clear usage context: retrieve operation metadata prior to invoking the operation. It does not name alternatives explicitly or state when not to use the tool, but the intended workflow is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.