plaid_item_getRetrieves an item's status including available and billed products, consent expiration, current error, and webhook URL.
Calls /item/get. Shows available/billed products, consent expiration, the current error (if any) and webhook URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes | item_id from plaid_sandbox_item_create (or a raw access_token you already hold) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation through 'Get' and 'Shows', but it does not explicitly state that no state is modified, nor does it address authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior beyond mentioning that an error may be present.
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, tightly written sentence that leads with the endpoint and immediately enumerates the returned fields. Every word adds value and there is no redundancy or filler.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what information it returns. It does not discuss usage exclusions or side effects, but these are minor given the tool's low complexity.
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 one parameter (item_id) is already well documented in the schema, including its provenance. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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?
The description names the exact endpoint (/item/get), identifies the resource (item), and lists the specific status information returned: available/billed products, consent expiration, current error, and webhook URL. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like plaid_item_remove or plaid_items_list.
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 makes it clear this is a status-reading tool, so when an agent needs item status, this is the natural choice. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with alternatives such as plaid_items_list or plaid_drift_check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.