get_mcp_integration

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: the response is the Portkey-side config, and configuration keys come back masked — an important disclosure that secrets are not returned in plaintext.

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, zero filler: the operation and its identifier forms come first, then the return shape, then the sibling disambiguation. Nothing could be removed without losing routing information.

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 with an output schema and full annotations, this is sufficient: the agent knows the input forms, that the payload is a full Portkey-side config with masked keys, and where to go for metadata instead. No material gap remains.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as accepting an ID or slug. The description repeats the id-or-slug duality but adds no lookup semantics (e.g. whether slug resolution is workspace-scoped or what happens on a miss), 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve one MCP integration by id or slug') and immediately demarcates it from the sibling get_mcp_integration_metadata. An agent can distinguish this from list_mcp_integrations and the metadata sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_mcp_integration_metadata when the server's self-reported metadata is wanted, which is the main ambiguity for this family of tools. It does not explicitly contrast with list_mcp_integrations (bulk listing), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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