Retrieves department details by ID. Use path parameters to specify the department and query parameters for filtering or pagination.
Get department details. Calls GET /departments/{departmentId}. Put route IDs in path_params and filtering, pagination, sorting, or include values in query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| path_params | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP verb (`GET`) and endpoint, which implies read-only behavior and no destructive side effects. However, it does not mention auth requirements, error behavior, or how missing departments are handled; the output schema does cover the response shape.
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, both substantive: the first states purpose, the second states the request construction details. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or irrelevant content.
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 GET-by-ID operation with an output schema present, the description gives enough to invoke the tool correctly: the endpoint, the path parameter location, and the query parameter categories. The only notable gap is the unexplained `body` parameter, but for a GET this is unlikely to block correct usage.
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 schema properties are generic `additionalProperties` objects, so the description must compensate. It usefully maps `path_params` to route IDs and `query` to filtering, pagination, sorting, and include values, but it does not name the exact expected query keys, clarify whether `body` should be omitted, or state which parameters are required.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get department details') and then pins the exact endpoint (`GET /departments/{departmentId}`). This makes it immediately distinguishable from the sibling `list_departments` and reinforces that it retrieves a single department.
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 gives clear operability guidance: route IDs belong in `path_params` while filtering, pagination, sorting, and include values belong in `query`. It does not explicitly name `list_departments` as the alternative for enumeration, but the single-resource endpoint and 'Get department details' make the intended context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.