ProdPad MCP Server

Get ProdPad Idea

prodpad_get_idea

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch complete details for a single ProdPad idea using its numeric or UUID ID.

Instructions

Get full details for a specific idea by ID.

Args:

id (string): Idea ID (numeric or UUID)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "prodpad_get_idea"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The resource ID (numeric or UUID)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does 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 'full details' as a behavioral signal and says nothing about error behavior for unknown IDs. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the purpose; the 'Args' block is redundant with the schema but harmless and very brief. No wasted prose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple single-param read tool with strong annotations, this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description could say what 'full details' actually contains (fields returned, nesting). That gap leaves the agent guessing about the response shape.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the ID format ('numeric or UUID'). The description repeats that same format hint rather than adding new semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (idea) with a scoping qualifier ('by ID'), which distinguishes it from prodpad_list_ideas and prodpad_create_idea. It does not, however, explicitly name the sibling it complements (e.g., prodpad_get_idea_userstories for related data).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description says to use an ID but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., where the ID comes from), and no mention of alternatives such as list_ideas or search. Usage is only weakly implied by 'by ID'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.