prodpad_get_feedbackRetrieve a specific piece of product feedback by numeric or UUID ID, including associated contact details, for direct access to ProdPad feedback records.
Get a specific piece of feedback by ID with contact details.
Args:
id (string): Feedback ID (numeric or UUID)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The resource ID (numeric or UUID) |
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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that contact details are included in the result, a small amount of context beyond structured data but not rich behavioral disclosure (no error behavior for missing IDs, no scope/permission notes).
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?
Front-loaded single sentence states the operation, and the extra Args block is short. However, that block duplicates the schema verbatim and adds no information, so it does not fully earn its place.
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-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is needed to invoke it. The remaining gap is the lack of routing guidance toward sibling list/get tools, which is a usage concern more than a completeness one.
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 only parameter is already documented as 'The resource ID (numeric or UUID)'. The description's Args block merely restates this, adding no new syntax or format meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 (Get) and resource (feedback) plus the lookup key (by ID) and a hint at the returned content (contact details). It does not distinguish itself from sibling prodpad_list_feedback or prodpad_get_feedback_ideas, but the singular 'a specific piece' implies single-record retrieval.
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 prodpad_list_feedback (to find IDs) or prodpad_get_feedback_ideas. There are no prerequisites or context clues about the workflow that produces a valid feedback ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.