Retrieve a Datto EDR organization by its GUID to inspect organization details; if the endpoint is unavailable, the error identifies related models for raw-request queries.
Get one Datto EDR organization by id. The endpoint is looked up in this instance's /explorer/swagger.json; if it is missing, the error lists related models to query with datto_edr_raw_request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Object id (GUID) |
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 and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the endpoint is resolved from the instance's swagger.json, and missing endpoints produce an error listing related models. It does not describe the return shape, but no output schema exists and the added endpoint-resolution behavior is valuable.
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 with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the endpoint-resolution/fallback sentence is compact and operationally useful.
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 single-resource read tool with complete schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: purpose, key parameter meaning, and fallback behavior if the endpoint is unavailable.
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 documented as an object id (GUID). The description only restates that lookup is by id, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 one Datto EDR organization') and the lookup key ('by id'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list tool datto_edr_organizations_list without requiring the 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?
The description makes clear this is the single-organization-by-id lookup, implicitly contrasted with the list sibling. It also explains a fallback path when the endpoint is missing: use datto_edr_raw_request with related models from the error. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.