mistral_get_libraryFetches details for a specific library using its library ID from the Mistral AI API, returning metadata needed to inspect or manage that library.
Get library details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| library_id | Yes | Library 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 safety is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing on top — no note that an invalid or missing library_id will error, no indication of what a successful lookup returns.
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?
Three words, front-loaded with the core intent, and free of padding. Brevity is a virtue here, though it edges toward under-specification rather than true economy.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what 'library details' actually contains (name, creation time, file counts, etc.), and it provides none of that. For a retrieval tool with no return-value disclosure anywhere, this is a meaningful gap.
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% for the single library_id parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation and the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional detail about ID format or origin.
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 verb and resource (get + library), so the basic purpose is legible. But it is a near-tautology of the title 'Get Library' and does nothing to distinguish this single-library fetch from mistral_list_libraries or mistral_get_library variants among the siblings.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the required library_id lookup key, and no routing toward alternatives like mistral_list_libraries for enumeration or mistral_update_library for mutation. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.