Retrieve a specific segment's details by its ID to view its configuration and membership for audience management.
Retrieve a segment by id (GET /segments/:id).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The segment id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' plus the GET method make the read-only nature clear, but the description does not mention response format, error behavior (e.g., 404), or authorization requirements. It is adequate but lacks richer behavioral context.
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 sentence with zero fluff. It front-loads the operation and includes the exact endpoint, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
For a simple single-parameter GET tool, the description and schema together are sufficient to call it correctly. It does not explain the response shape, but 'retrieve a segment' implies the returned object, and no output schema is present. Minor gaps remain around error handling and response details.
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?
The input schema has 100% documentation coverage for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already explains the parameter. The description adds only 'by id', which restates the schema rather than providing additional semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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') and resource ('a segment by id'), and the endpoint GET /segments/:id confirms the exact operation. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_segments, create_segment, update_segment, and delete_segment.
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?
Usage is implied: this tool should be used when you have a segment id and want that single segment's details. However, there is no explicit guidance comparing it to list_segments or other segment tools, nor any when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.