atlasent_get_permitRetrieve a permit's full record by ID, including status, actor, action, environment, times, and decision—without exposing the token.
Fetch one permit's record: status, actor, action, environment, issue/expiry/consume times and the decision that issued it. Never returns the permit token itself.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| permit_id | Yes | Permit id (UUID) as returned by atlasent_list_permits. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.13.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses the exact return contents and, critically, the negative guarantee that the permit token is never returned — a non-obvious behavioral limitation an agent would not otherwise know. This is strong added context for a tool with no output schema.
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 sentences, no filler. The primary action and return contents are front-loaded, and the critical token caveat is placed in a short second sentence. Every clause earns its place.
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 single-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage and a safety profile in annotations, the description covers the essential ground: what is retrieved and a key limitation. The return field list compensates for the missing output schema. Minor gaps remain — error behavior for a nonexistent permit_id and explicit sibling routing — but nothing blocks correct invocation.
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 100%, and the permit_id parameter is fully documented in the schema as a UUID returned by atlasent_list_permits. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Uses a specific verb ('Fetch') with a precise resource ('one permit's record') and enumerates the exact fields returned (status, actor, action, environment, issue/expiry/consume times, decision). The 'one permit's record' phrasing cleanly separates it from atlasent_list_permits, and the final clause distinguishes it from token-returning 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?
Usage context is implied: 'one permit's record' signals this is for single-record retrieval rather than listing, and 'Never returns the permit token itself' hints that token-seeking callers should look elsewhere. However, no alternative tool is named, and it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over atlasent_check_permit, atlasent_verify_permit, or atlasent_get_decision, leaving routing partially to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.