MCP Platform Service

get_entity

Retrieves an entity (user, project, task, or document) by its unique ID and type from the platform.

Instructions

Retrieve a specific entity by ID and type from the external platform

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "entityId": "<entityId>",
      "entityType": "<entityType>"
    },
    "name": "get_entity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entityId`	Yes	The unique identifier of the entity to retrieve
`entityType`	Yes	The type of entity (e.g., 'user', 'project', 'task')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior (e.g., if entity not found).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, and description does not explain the return value format or field structure. For a retrieval tool, this is a significant gap. Errors or edge cases are not mentioned.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'by ID and type', so baseline score applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the action (retrieve) and the resource (entity by ID and type). It distinguishes from create/delete/update siblings, though lacks explicit differentiation from 'get_reference', which might require further clarification.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_reference. Does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server