mistral_get_agentRetrieve detailed information about a Mistral AI agent by providing its agent ID. Use it to inspect an agent's configuration and properties.
Get details of an agent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | Agent ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing on top of that — no note on what is returned, whether a missing agent errors, or any auth/scope requirement.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing context noted elsewhere.
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 whose annotations cover the safety profile and whose schema documents the parameter, the description is minimally sufficient. It stops short of describing what the returned agent object contains, which the absence of an output schema would otherwise justify.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no meaning about the agent_id format or where it comes from; 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 ('Get details of an agent'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as mistral_list_agents or mistral_update_agent, nor does it say what 'details' comprise.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus mistral_list_agents (for browsing) or mistral_update_agent, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid agent_id from a prior listing call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.