Retrieve a specific integration's details by ID. Applies account permission and ownership checks to ensure secure access.
Get integrations id. Backend account permissions and ownership checks apply. Required permissions: public
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully states that backend account permissions and ownership checks apply and lists 'public' as the required permission, adding some behavioral context beyond structured fields. However, it omits other relevant traits such as read-only nature, idempotency, or error behavior.
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 very short and front-loaded, with no wasted sentences. The first sentence is awkwardly phrased, but the overall brevity is appropriate for a simple get tool.
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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description still fails to state what resource is being fetched or what the 'id' parameter refers to. It also does not differentiate from sibling list or get tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for correct selection.
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%, and the description does not mention any parameters. It provides no meaning for 'id', 'limit', or 'offset', leaving the placeholder schema descriptions as the only (non-informative) source.
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 integrations id' essentially restates the tool name and does not clearly specify that it retrieves a single integration resource by ID. It fails to distinguish this tool from sibling acedatacloud_list_integrations or other get_* tools.
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 mentions permissions and ownership checks but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as acedatacloud_list_integrations. There are no explicit conditions or exclusions for its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.